FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 4, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 68 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 00 6- CR-B AE-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SCOTT DANIEL SCHAEFER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 4 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Sco ttDani el Sch aefe r pl ead edgu il ty to p os se ss io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy andwas sen te nc edto a 10 8- m on th term of i m pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y th ree years of supe rv is edrel eas e. Sch aefe r ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc e o n app eal . Firs t, h e arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Seco nd , he arg ue s tha t h e was de ni edth e eff

ect iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Bec au se Sch aefe r ha s n ot de m on st rat edth athi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le an d h e h as no t sh own th athe was p reju di cedby his co un se l’s erro rs , we affi rm hi s s en te nc e. I. Back gr ou nd Sch aefe r was in di ct edforrece ip t an d p os se ss io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy fo ll owi ng a Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e st in g o pe rat io n. Sc ha eferag reedto pl ead gu il ty to p os se ss io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy in e xc ha ng e fo r th e g ov ern m en t m ov in g to di sm is s t he rem ai ni ng co un t o f th e in di ctm en t. The gu id el in es ran ge for Sch aefe r’s of

fen se , bas edon th e o ffen se lev el an d h is cri m in al hi st ory , was 7 8 t o 10 8 m on th s. Th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edSch aefe r to a 10 8- m on th term of im pr is on m en t an d thr ee years o f supe rv is edrel eas e. Afte r he was i ni ti al ly sen te nc ed , Sch aefe r di d n otfil e anap pe al . Sev en m on th s l at er, h e wro te to th e d is tri ctjud ge , exp la in in g t ha t h e h adask edhi s at to rn ey to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al , bu t h is att orne y ha d re fu se d t o d o s o. Sc ha efer
was advi se d t o fi le a m ot io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 , whi ch he di d. Th e d is tri ct
co urt the n g ran te d t he m ot io n a ndev en tu al ly resen te nc edSch aefe r acc or di ng to 2th e p ro cedur e se t fo rth in Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph il li ps , 22 5 F .3d11 98 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 ). Sch aefe r no w app eal s h is sen te nc e. II. Sen te nc in g Is su es Sch aefe r fi rs t ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itdo es no t ac hi ev e th e p ur po se s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Sp eci fic al ly, Sch aefe r co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se (1) th e tr ia l ju dg e p la cedun du e em ph as is on hi s “ rel at iv el y

m in orcri m in al reco rd ;” (2) th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th athe wil l en ga ge infurth er cr im in al co nduc t; (3) a sh orte r se nt en ce wo ul d s ti ll ha ve ha d a d et erre nteffe ct ; an d, (4 ) he ha s n otrece iv edan y cred itforhi s ac cep tanc e o f
res po ns ib il it y . W e rev ie w sen te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss , whi ch ess en ti al ly m ean s we a sk whe th er the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng a se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Boo ker , 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 26 1 (2 00 5) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 11 79 , 11 89 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Sen te nc es , li ke th is on e, th atare wi th in th e p ro pe rly calc ul at ed gu id el in es ran ge are o rd in ari ly exp ect edto be reas on ab le
. Rita v . Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 34 1 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. C amp be ll , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 13 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Even if asen te nc e is withi n the gu id el in es , to be subs tant iv el y reas on ab le , itm

us t al so , con si de rin g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , ach ie ve th e

3pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a). Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) ; Pugh , 51 5 1 F.3 d a t 1 19 1 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 43 5 F .3d13 50 , 13 54 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). The party chal le ng in g asen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng it s un reas on ab le ne ss . Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 18 9. Sch aefe r’s arg um en ts do no t s ho w th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le , in de ed , so m e o f th em

do jus t the op po si te . For e xam pl e, al th ou gh Sch aefe r cl ai m s the di st ric t ju dg e g av e n o c on si de rat io n t o h is acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , th e gu id el in es sen te nc e ref

le ct s a t hr ee-l ev el reduc ti on ba se d o n S ch aefe r’s earl y gu il ty ple a. Sch aefe r al so arg ue s t ha t the tri al jud ge gave un du e wei gh t t o h is “ rel at iv el y m in or ” cri m in al hi st ory

insen te nc in g. Th is co urt h as he ldth at“ th e wei gh t g iv en to an y § 3 55 3( a) fa ct oris withi n t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d we wil l n otsubs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the rel ev an t fa ct or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Those purpose s are : 1 (1) the na

ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda

nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need for de terre nce; ( 4) the ne ed to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims
. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 4Amede o , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Tho ug h t he tri al jud ge co ns id ered

Sch aefe r’s cri m in al hi st ory un de r th e § 35 53 (a) a na lysis , th ere i s n ot hi ng inth e reco rdto su gg es t tha t h e p la cedun du e em ph as is on itinm ak in g h is de ci si on . 2 Sch aefe r’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts are co nc lu so ry . His a ss ert io n t ha t h e wil l
no t en ga ge insi m il ar co nduc t i n t he futur e d oe s n othi ng to de m on st rat e th athi s se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . His a rg um en t tha t a g ui de li ne s s en te nc e is
un ne ces sary

forde te rren ce i s l ik ewis e u na va il in g. Th ou gh Sch aefe r m ak es th es e as se rti on s, h e d oe s n otsu gg es t h ow o r why the y sh ow t ha t h is sen te nc e is
un reas on ab le
. Sch aefe r ha s n otpre se nt edan y ev id en ce tha t the tri al co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

un jus ti fiabl y

rel y in g o n a ny on e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or , im po si ng an arb it rary sen te nc e, orba si ng it s s en te nc e o n an i m pe rm is si bl e fac to r. Pugh , 51 5 F.3 d a t 1 19 1– 92 . W e th eref or e aff irm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ctjud ge . III. In effe ct iv e Ass is tanc e o f Co un se l Sch aefe r al so cla im s t ha t h e rec ei ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l wh en hi s l awy er fa il edto fil e anap pe al de sp it e h is reque staft er h e was in it ia ll y se nt en ced . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d S ch aefe r’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n a nd Nothing r equire s a district judg e to state on the r ecor d that he or she has explicitl y 2 considere d eac h of the § 3553(a) fa ctors or to discuss ea ch one in de tail. United States v. Sc ott , 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 5res en te nc edhi m fol lo win g t he Phi ll ip s pr oc edur e, 22 5 F .3dat 1 20 0, wh ic h al lo wedSch aefe r to tak e anap pe al , any preju di ce tha t h e su ffer edas ares ul t o f hi s pr io r co un se l’s fa il in gs ha s b een cu red . As s uc h, h is cla im is m oo t. AFFIRMED.

6