FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 39 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cr-0 01 44 -PCF -GJK- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RHONDA JENNETTE BAYS, 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 5, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Rh on daJen ne tt e Bays ap pe al s h er 2 92 -m on th co nc urren t s en te nc es for co nv ic ti on s o n t he ch arg es of p ro du ct io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy andco ns pi racy totra ve l i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce forth e p ur

po se of e ng ag in g i n i ll ic itsex ua l co nduc t. Bays arg ue s tha t h er s en te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se sh e rece iv eda lo ng er s en te nc e th anTann er St ic kn ey , ano th er p erp etrat or , andbe cau se of he r pe rs on al hi st ory

an d c irc um st an ces .

I. Bays, who li ve d i n F lo rid a, be ga n d at in g Tan ne r St ic kn ey , who li ve d i n W as hi ng to n D.C., i n 2 00 7. In20 08 th ey reg ul arl y ch atte d o nl in e ab ou t h av in g se xu al co nt actwith m in or s. Bay s, i n p rep arat io n fo r a Jun e 2 00 8 v is itfro m St ic kn ey , con vi nc edhe r si st er t o a ll ow h er an d S ti ckne y to tak e h er fo ur -y ear- ol d ne ph ew to anam

us em en t p ark . Ins te adof t ak in g t he ch il d t o a n a m us em en t p ark , Bays an d S ti ckne y

to okth e fo ur -y ear- ol d t o am ot el wher e Bays vi de ot ap ed St ic kn ey to uc hi ng th e ch il d’s p en is , rub bi ng hi s o wn er ectpe ni s ag ai ns t the ch il d, an d p erfo rm in g o ral sex on th e ch il d. Afte r th attri p, Ba y s an d S ti ckne y rep eat ed ly chat te d o nl in e wit h e achot he r ab ou t tha t p rev io us vi de o a ndm ad e p lans to m ak e a m or e ex pl ic itvi de o t ha t wou ldin vo lv e ev enm or e se xu al co nt actwith h er fo ur -y ear- ol d n ep he w. Bay s, us in g h er ce ll ph on e, al so sen t t o S ti ckne y ’s cel l p ho ne nu de ph ot og rap hs of t he ch il d. St ic kn ey

m ad e p lans to co m e b ackto Flo rid a o n M ay 15 , 20 09 .

2Inpre parat io n fo r St ic kn ey ’s vi si t, Ba y s trie d t o c on vi nc e h er s is te r to lethe r

babysithe r fo ur -y ear- ol d n ep he w forth e week en d. Be cau se th atpro ve d un su cces sf

ul , two da y s b efo re St ic kn ey ’s tri p B ay s t ex te d h im th athe r ne ph ew m ig htno t b e av ai labl e to sex ua ll y ab us e, bu t tha t s he was wo rk in g o n a rep la cem en t. Sh ortl y

th erea fte r Bays to ldSti ckne y th atsh e h adco nv in cedth e pa ren ts of atwo -y ear- ol d re la ti ve to lethe r babysitth e b ab y forth e week en d. Bas edon a ti p fr om

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, St ic kn ey was arres te d i n t he Orla nd o, Fl or id a ai rp ort o n M ay 15 , 20 09 . Sti ckne y

ha d wi th hi m

a ha lf- fu ll bo tt le of an al lubr ic an t. The ag en ts als o fo un d t he na ke d p ic tu res of B ay s’ fou r-y ear- ol d ne ph ew onhi s p ho ne an d t he tex ts fro m Bays. Pos in g a s St ic kn ey , th e ag en ts be ga n t ex ti ng Bays. She re sp on de d wi th tex ts of h er o wn b y de sc rib in g t he types of sex ua l ab us e St ic kn ey

wou ldbe ab le to in fli cton he r two -y ear- ol d re la ti ve , in cl ud in g fo rci ng th e two -y ear- ol d t o p erfo rm ora l s ex on Sti ckne y . Bays was c ha rg edwith p ro du ct io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 22 51 (a) and(e) an d 2 (Co un t 1 ), an d c on sp ira cy to tra ve l i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce for th e p ur po se of e ng ag in g i n i ll ic itsex ua l co nduc t, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 42 3( b) an d (e ) (Co un t 2 ). She pl ead edgu il ty to b ot h c ou nt s. Bays’ ba se off

en se lev el un de r th e g ui de li ne s fo r Co un t 1 was 3 2. Sh e rece iv eda fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e b ecau se th e o ffen se in vo lv eda min orun de r th e ag e 3of

12 ; a two- le ve l i nc reas e b ecau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edsex ua l co nt act ; a t wole ve l i nc reas e b ecau se itin vo lv edth e d is tri bu ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy; an d a two -le ve l i nc reas e b ecau se itin vo lv eda m in orth atBays was re la te d t o a ndov er who m sh e h adcu st od y , care, o r supe rv is ory co nt ro l, fo r anad

jus te d o ffen se lev el of 42 for Co un t 1 . Bay s h ada ba se off en se lev el of 2 4 fo r Co un t 2 . She rece iv ed a two -le ve l i nc reas e b ecau se sh e was a rel at iv e o f th e m in orvi ct im ; a t wo- le ve l in crea se be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edsex ua l co nt act ; an d a n e ig ht -le ve l i nc reas e be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv eda m in orun de r th e ag e o f 12 , foranad jus te d o ffen se le ve l o f 36 for

Co un t 2 . The co m

bi ne d o ffen se lev el un de r gu id el in es rul e § 3D1 .4 pr oduc edanad

jus te d o ffen se lev el of 4 3. Ba y s re cei ve d ath ree- le ve l d ecre as e fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , fora to ta l o ffen se lev el of 4 0. Ba y s d idno t h av e an y cri m in al hi st ory

po in ts . Accor di ng ly, th e rec omm en de d ra ng e und er the gu id el in es was 2 92 –3 65 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Bays reque st edbe lo w-th e-g ui de li ne s- ran ge sen te nc es of 1 80 m on th s. Sh e arg ue d t ha t s he was ano n- vi ol en t o ffen de r, di d n otha ve a cri m in al hi st ory , and was no t a d an ge r to th e co m m un ity . Add it io na ll y , alt ho ug h s he is ve ry br ig ht—s he ha d a n IQ o f 15 9— a p sychi atric ev al ua ti on in di cat edth atsh e was bi po lar, po ss ib ly suf

fere d fr om

Po stTrau m at ic Str es s Di so rd er, an d h ada bo rd erl in e p ers on al ity

di so rd er. Sh e al so arg ue d t ha t St ic kn ey ha d e nt ereda pl ea 4de al th atwou ldgi ve hi m a 18 0- m on th sen te nc e. Bays, ho wev er, co ul d n otsay tha t St ic kn ey was c ha rg edwith the same crim es as h er, an d a dm itte d tha t h e p ro babl y di d n otrece iv e th e sa m e g ui de li ne s s co re as he r. The go ve rn m en t re qu es te d s en te nc es ne ar the to p o f th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, po in ti ng to th e h ei no us na tu re o f Bays’ of fen se s. Itpo in te d o utth atsh e h ad at te m pt edto vi ct im iz e h er two- y ear- ol d re la ti ve an d l ik el y wou ldha ve su ccee de d if t he go ve rn m en t h adno t i nt erv en ed . The g ov ern m en t al so ex pl ai ne d S ti ckne y ’s si tu at io n was no t s im il ar t o B ay s b ecau se hi s s en te nc e res ul te d fr om hi s co op erat io n, wh ic h h adledto th e arr es t an d p ro se cu ti on of t wo p ers on s wh o wer e act iv el y ab us in g c hi ldren . The co urt i m

po se d asen te nc e “ fo r a t ot al term of 2 92 m on th s.” Itex pl ai ne d th atde sp it e Bays pe rs on al hi st ory an d m en ta l h eal th is su es , th e se rio us ne ss of t he cri m es , th e fac t tha t the y

were the res ul t o f car efu l p lann in g andatt en ti on ov er ti m e, th e n eedto de te r su chco nduc t, an d t he ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c warra nt eda gu id el in es -ran ge sen te nc e. The c ou rt r eco gn iz edth atSti ckne y ap pa ren tl y

ha d rece iv eda sh orte r se nt en ce, b utno te d t ha t the di sc rep an cy co ul d b e b ecau se of gu id el in es sco rin g d iff

eren ces , bec au se Sti ckne y m ay ha ve be enfou ndgu il ty of di ffer en t cr im es , or b ecau se he ha d a ss is te d i n t he arre stof t wo ad di ti on al ch il d m ol es te rs . 5On ap pe al , we fou ndth atalt ho ug h t he co urt “ co nv ic te d B ay s o f bo th

of fen se s . . . itdi d n otim

po se a se pa rat e se nt en ce o n e ach co un t.” Un it edSta te s v . Bays, 38 9 F ed . App x. 9 16 , 91 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (unpubl is he d) . W e v acat edth e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t an d s en te nc e an d re m an de d “ with the in st ru ct io n t ha t the co urt i m po se sep arat e se nt en ces forCo un ts One a ndTwo.” Id . On re m an d, the di st ric t co urt i n a dd it io n t o i nc or po rat in g t he en ti re fi rs t se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g a ll owe d m or e arg um en t. Bays as ke d fo r be lo w-th egu id el in es -ran ge sen te nc es an d a ga in po in te d t o t he po te nt ia l s en te nc in g d is pa rit y be twee n h er an d S ti ckne y . The g ov ern m en t ag ai n a rg ue d t ha t the di sp ari ty w as warrant edbe cau se Sti ckne y pro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th subs tant ia l as si st an ce. The di stric t co urt d idno t thi nkth atbe lo w-th e-g ui de li ne s- ran ge sen te nc es wou ldbe ap pr op ria te . The co urt re sp on de d t o B ay s’ di sp ari ty argu m en t b y ex pl ai ni ng th atin equi ty betweensen te nc es is an“ acce pt ab le co stof b ei ng ab le to pu rs ue ot he r pe op le who are en ga ge d i n c riminal act iv ity ,” an d a ls o b y po in ti ng ou t tha t St ic kn ey

actua ll y was c ha rg edwith d iff

eren t cr im es th anBays. The co urt se nt en cedBays to 29 2 m on th s i m pr is on m en t o n e ach co un t, t o b e se rv ed co nc urren tl y

—s en te nc es at t he ve ry

bo tt om of t he gu id el in es ran ge . II.

6W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it ed

St at es v. To m e, 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). To d et erm in e if a se nt en ce is subs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le , “ we m

us t, as th e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus , co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces .” Uni te d S tate s v . Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 18 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (enba nc ). “ [O]rdi na ril y we . . . ex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e wil l v acat e a s en te nc e fo r subs tant iv e un reas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar err or

of ju dg m en t i n wei gh in g t he § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y

arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Ire y , 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 0 (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . “ The pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” To m e, 61 1 F .3dat 13 78 . The to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces sh ow tha t Ba y s’ con cu rren t 2 92 -m on th se nt en ces are re as on ab le . The s en te nc es were atth e b ot to m of t he ran ge reco m m en de d b y

th e g ui de li ne s. An d t he sen te nc es tak e in to acco un t Ba y s’ hi st ory an d m en ta l h eal th is su es , th atsh e reg ul arl y tal ke d wi th Sti ckne y

ab ou t se xu al ly abu si ng m in or s, tha t s he tri ck edhe r si st er i nt o a ll owi ng he r an d S ti ckne y 7to sex ua ll y

ab us e h er fo ur -y ear- ol d n ep he w, th atsh e v id eo tape d t ha t ab us e, th at sh e u se d h er ce ll ph on e to sen d S ti ckne y na ke d p ic tu res of h er n ep he w, th atsh e tri edto ag ai n t ric k h er s is te r to so sh e co ul d a ga in ab us e h er n ep he w, th atwhen th atfai le d s he th enpl an ne d t o v ic ti m iz e h er two- y ear- ol d re la ti ve , andth atsh e te xt edSti ckne y

ab ou t the way s tha t h e co ul d s ex ua ll y ab us e th e b ab y . The fac t th atSti ckne y

—wh o was ch arg edwith d iff eren t cr im es , who m ay

ha ve ha d a di ffer en t g ui de li ne s s co re, an d wh o a ss is te d t he go ve rn m en t i n t he arre stan d pr os ecu ti on of t wo ad di ti on al pe rs on s wh o wer e se xu al ly abu si ng ch il dr en—m ay ha ve rece iv eda sh orte r se nt en ce d oe s n otm ak e Bays’ sen te nc e unr eas on ab le . 1 AFFIRMED.

Ba y s makes the c onclusory

statement in her brief that “ [i ]tis a matter of policy , within 1 the Middle District of F lorida, that F ed. Crim. Rule 11(c) (1)( C) plea a gree ments are not allowed,” which “is a

n Equal Protection proble m.” B ay s fails to provide arguments as to why that “policy” would be a

n “Equa l Protection problem,” a nd there fore has aba

ndoned the argument. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (“I f an argument is not fully

briefe d . . . we de em [it ] abandoned a nd do not addre ss its m erits.”) . 8