FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT 8, 2 010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 04 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cr-0 02 22 -MHT-C SC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us ANTONIO D. MCDADE, a.k.a . T Dawg, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 8 , 20 10 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ant on io D. McDad e ap pe al s h is 24 0- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty w it ho uta pl ea ag reem en t t o o ne co un t o f pr oduc in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). McDad e arg ue s h ere t ha t the 1 di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d t wo s en te nc in g e nh an cem en ts when cal cu la ti ng hi s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ra ng e, th ereb y m ak in g h im

acco un tabl e fo r th e co nduc t of ot he rs . He als o a rg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e v io la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n a ga in stcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t g iv enth athi s m en ta l re tard at io n reduc es hi s p ers on al cu lp ab il it y . After r ev ie w, we ho ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt
co rrec tl y ap pl ie d t he sen te nc in g e nh an cem en ts an d tha t M cDad e’s se nt en ce d oe s no t p la in ly vio la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . I.

Section 2251(a) provides that 1 [a] ny person who employ s, uses, persuades, induce s, entices, or coer ces any minor to eng ag e in, or who has a minor assis t an y o th er p erson to eng ag e in, or who transports any m i n o r in or aff ecting interstate or fore ign commerc e, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that suc h minor eng ag e in, any sexual l y expli cit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpo s e o f t ransmit ting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punis hed as provided under s ubsecti o n (e ), if such person knows or has rea son to know that s uch vis u al d ep i ct ion will be transported or transmitted using any means or fac ility of interstate or fore ign commerc e or in or aff ecting interstate o r fore ign commerc e or mailed, if that visual depiction was produce d or transmitted using materia ls that h av e b een mailed, shipped, or transporte d in or aff ecting interstate or fore ign commerc e by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has a ctually been transported or transmitted using a ny means or fac ility of interstate o r fo reign commerc e or in or aff ecting interstate or fore ign commerc e or ma iled. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). 2On J ul y 6, 2 00 5, p ol ic e res po nd edto a cal l tha t a 1 4- y ear- ol d g irl , who m we wil l ca ll T.P., hadbe enrap ed . She rep orte d t ha t s he was v is it in g afri en d the ni gh t be fo re an d h adcal le d h er fri en d M cDad e who li ve d n earb y fora ri de ho m e. Afte r th e two walk edto McDad e’s res id en ce, Mc Dad e to ldT.P. th athi s ca r ne ed edto be rep ai redan d t ha t h e wou ldno t b e ab le to dri ve he r ho m e. McDad e th ento okT.P.
acro ss th e st reetto a ho us e whe re m enwere s it ti ng ou ts id e smoki ng an d drin ki ng . One of tho se m en , Cou rtn ey Flo wers , age 21 , to okT.P. up st ai rs to a ro om an d in st ru ct edhe r to pe rfo rm ora l s ex onhi m

an d t he reaf

te r to ha ve sex ua l i nt erco ur se with h im . Whi le th ey

were en ga ge d i n s ex ua l i nt erco ur se , othe rs , in cl ud in g 1 9- y ear- ol d No ahFig ue ro a, en te redth e ro om an d a ls o b eg anrece iv in g o ral sex fro m T.P. Mea nwh il e, ba ckou ts id e, anin di vi du al na m edBig Bo y returne d avi de o cam era t ha t h e h adbo rro wedfro m McDad e. McDad e th enen te redth e h ou se , and be cau se th e li gh ts were o ff, h e tu rn edth e cam era o n a ndus edit s l ig htto fin d h is way . He th enpro ceed edto anup st ai rs roo m fro m whi chhe he ardso m eo ne ta lk in g. With th e cam era r ol li ng , McDad e en te redth e ro om , fli pp edth e li gh ts on , an d fo un d T.P. h av in g s ex . Accor di ng to McDad e, he po in te d t he cam era a t T.P.
an d c on ti nu edto reco rd“ to see th at[T.P.] wou ldn’t h ol le r rap e o r so m ethi ng .” Bu t ev enaft er T.P. di d n otcal l o utforhe lp , he c on ti nu edto fil m he r ha vi ng sex . 3Andwhi le Fig ue ro a was rece iv in g o ral sex fro m T.P., McDad e cam e “ cl os er wi th th e v id eo cam era” at F ig ue ro a’s di rect io n. Then , aft er Fl owe rs an d F ig ue ro a fin is he d h av in g s ex with T.P., Mc Dad e fi lm edhe r lying nu de onth e b edwhi le be in g p en etrat edwith a n e m pt y be er b ot tl e. All to ld , fiv e o r si x m enha d s ex with T.P. du rin g t he co ur se of t he ni gh t, an d M cDad e h adfil m edfor sev enmin ut es . Fo ll owi ng McDad e’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ca lc ul at edhi s gu id el in e ran ge as 2 92 to 36 0 m on th s b as edon anoff en se lev el of 3 8 a nda cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I II. Inde te rm in in g h is off en se lev el , th e d is tri ctco urt ga ve McDad e a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er Un it edSta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2G2 .1(b )(2 )(A) (No v. 2 00 9) be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv ed“ th e co m m is si on of asex ua l ac t o r se xu al co nt act .” It a ls o g av e h im a fo ur -le ve l
en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.1 (b )(4 ), fin di ng th atth e se xu al actwith t he be er b ot tl e p ortra y edsad is ti c co nduc t. The di stric t co urt, h owe ve r, va rie d do wnwar d fr om

th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge be cau se of M cDad e’s m en ta l cap aci ty. It fo un d M cDad e to be “ atlea stmil dl y m en ta ll y ret ard ed ,” st at in g t ha t

“ th e ev id en ce s up po rti ng th is co nc lu si on—i nc lu di ng m ul ti pl e I.Q. tes ts , educ at io na l re co rd s, an d t he tes ti m on y of M cDad e’s ex pe rt, Dr. Th om as J. Bo ll —i s s im

pl y ov erwh el m in g.” Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed

4McDa de to 24 0 m on th s—whi chco ns ti tu te d ado wnwar d v ari an ce o f 52

m on th s— an d l ife ti m e supe rv is edrel eas e. 2 II.

“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es de no vo an d a ccep t i ts factua l fi nd in gs un le ss cle arl y erro ne ou s. Anerro r in th e di st ric t co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge warran ts va cat in g th e se nt en ce, u nl es s t he erro r is ha rm le ss .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Barn er, 5 72 F.3d 12 39 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Butwher e, as he re, a d efen da nt rai se s a s en te nc in g a rg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we wil l o nl y va cat e th e se nt en ce upo n afin di ng of p la inerro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Agu il la rd , 21 7 F .3d 13 19 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). “ Pl ai n e rro r oc cu rs wher e (1 ) th ere i s an erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n o r ob vi ou s; (3) affe ct in g the de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts inth atit
was pre jud ic ia l an d n otha rm le ss ; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Raad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. McDa de arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y en ha nc edhi s s en te nc e un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.1 (b )(2 )(A) an d § 2G2 .1(b )(4 ). Sect io n 2 G2.1 (b )(2 )(A) pr ov id es a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e “ of fen se in vo lv ed
. . . th e co m m is si on of a
At the sentenc ing he aring , McDa de’s c ounsel reque sted a 240-month sente nce. 2 5se xu al actor s ex ua l co nt act .” Tho se term s ar e d efi ne d t o i nc lu de sex ua l

in te rco ur se , ora l s ex , andth e in te nt io na l t ou ch in g, ei th er d ire ct ly or th ro ug h t he cl ot hi ng , of p riv at e are as with t he in te ntto aro us e o r gr at ify the sex ua l d es ire of
an y pe rs on . See U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.1 cmt. 2 (de fin in g “ se xu al act ” an d “ se xu al
co nt act ” b y

refe ren ce t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 46 ). As fo r § 2 G2.1 (b )(4 ), itpro vi de s a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f “ th e o ffen se in vo lv edm at eri al th atpo rtr ay s s ad is ti c o r
m as oc hi st ic co nduc t o r othe r de pi ct io ns of v io le nc e.” Mc Dad e co nt en ds th atth es e en ha nc em en ts sh ou ldno t ap pl y be cau se he was m erel y

th e cam eram anan d t ha t the
ev id en ce fa il edto est ab li sh th athe was t he on e en ga gi ng inth e se xu al act s o r sa di st ic co nduc t. W e co nc lu de th atth e en ha nc em en ts were co rrec tl y ap pl ie d. Inde te rm in in g McDa de ’s sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt was requi redto co ns ul t the gu id el in es an d t o co rrec tl y cal cu la te th e ran ge as p ro vi de d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, the ap pl ic at io n o f th e two en ha nc em en ts di d n ot requi re a fi nd in g t ha t M cDad e h im se lf e ng ag edina se xu al actor s ex ua l co nduc t with T.P. o r th athe was t he on e who pe rfo rm edth e sa di st ic actin vo lv in g the be er bo tt le . This fol lo ws fr om th e p la in word in g o f th e en ha nc em en ts th em se lv es . Sect io n § 2G2 .1(b )(2 )(A) o nl y requi res th atth e o ffen se (i.e ., th e p ro du ct io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy) “ in vo lv e” a s ex ua l ac t o r se xu al co nt act . Like wis e, th e 6en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2G2 .1(b )(4 ) ap pl ie s i f th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy “po rtr ay s

sa di st ic or m as oc hi st ic co nduc t o r ot he r de pi ct io ns of v io le nc e.” The ap pl ic at io n of th es e en hanc em en ts th us tu rn edno t o n wh atsex ua ll y ex pl ic itco nduc t M cDad e
m ay ha ve pe rs on al ly part ic ip at edinbu t ra th er o n wh atwas c on ta in edinor in vo lv edwith t he vi de o h e sh ot . 3 Ourco nc lu si on reg ard in g t he se en ha nc em en ts is als o s up po rte d b y th e st atut ory tex t o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 1( a), the off en se of c on vi ct io n. Mc Dad e p le ad ed gu il ty to p ro du ci ng a vi su al de pi ct io n o f a m in or en ga gi ng in“ se xu al ly exp li ci t
co nduc t.” Un de r th e st atut e, “ se xu al ly exp li ci t co nduc t” is de fin edto in cl ud e
am on g o th er thi ng s t he “ la sc iv io us ex hi bi ti on of the ge ni ta ls or p ub ic areaof a ny pe rs on .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 6( 2) (A)(v ). Sect io n 2 25 1( a) the refo re d oe s n otrequi re i n al l ca se s tha t the ch il d p orno gr ap hy sho w sex ua l co nt act , a se xu al act , or s ad is ti c co nduc t t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on ; a s ex ua ll y pro vo cat iv e d ep ic ti onof t he ge ni ta ls of
an y pe rs on wil l s uf

fic e. The g ui de li ne s the refo re i nc reas e th e o ffen se lev el forth e cri m e b as edon whatth e m in orch il d m ay ha ve be ensubjec t t o dur in g t he pr oduc ti on of t he ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Fo r th e m os t b as ic off en se , th e g ui de li ne s

At the sentenc ing he aring , McDa de’s c ounsel conc eded that under this interpre tation, the 3 two-leve l enhanc ement cle arly applied bec ause the video portra y s in gr aphic de tail not only multipl e instance s of sexual contact but also sexual acts. As to the four- level enha nceme nt, McDa de does not c halleng e on appe al the findingthat the sexual act with the bee r bottle, also depicted on the video, was c learly sadistic. 7pr ov id e a l ev el of 3 2. Bu t wh enth e o ffen se in vo lv es a se xu al actor s ex ua l

co nt act , th e b as e o ffen se lev el is in crea se d b y two , andby fou r if

th e o ffen se in vo lv es m at eri al po rtr ay in g s ad is ti c co nduc t. U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.1 (a), (b )(2 )(A), (b )(4 ). W e th eref

or e fi ndno erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n t ha t the ap pl ic at io n o f th es e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts di d n ottu rnon McDad e’s pe rs on al in vo lv em en t i n t he sex ua l ac ts or s ad is ti c co nduc t. Neit he r do we fin d p ers ua si ve McDad e’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt sh ou ldha ve tak enhi s d im in is he d m en ta l capa ci ty int o a cco un t wh ende te rm in in g whe th er the en ha nc em en ts ap pl ie d. Un li ke othe r en ha nc em en ts inwhi chth e ap pl ic at io n turns inpa rt o n t he de fen da nt ’s m en ta l s ta te , th e ap pl ic at io n o f th es e en ha nc em en ts di d n ot . Nothi ng inth e te xtof t he en ha nc em en ts requi res a fi nd in g, fo r ex am pl e, th atth e d efen da ntin te nt io na ll y , pu rp os efu ll y , or wi ll fu ll y fil m edth e se xu al ly exp li ci t co nduc t g iv in g ri se to th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en ts . Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Turn er, 3 24 F.3d45 6, 4 61 (6t h C ir. 2 00 3) (st at in g tha t b ecau se th e o bs tru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en hanc em en t s pe ak s i n t erm s o f co nduc t tha t i s

“ wil lfu l,” t he en hanc em en t wo ul d n otbe ap pl ic ab le to a de fen dantwho pro ve d th athe lac ke d t he m en ta l capa ci ty to wi ll fu ll y ob stru ctjus ti ce). Th e d is tri ctco urt th eref or e d idno t err in fai li ng to tak e in to acco un t M cDad e’s di min is he d m en ta l cap aci ty whe n c al cu la ti ng hi s g ui de li ne ran ge . 8Fo r th es e rea so ns , we fin d n o e rro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, in th e d is tri ctco urt’s

ap pl ic at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts un de r § 2 G2.1 (b )(2 )(A) an d § 2 G2.1 (b )(4 ). III. McDa de als o a rg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal th athi s s en te nc e v io la te s th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. We the refo re rev ie w McDad e’s ch al le ng e fo r pl ai n e rro r. See R aad , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 3. The Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s tha t “ [e]xce ss iv e b ai l s ha ll no t b e requi red , no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, n orcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts in fli ct ed .” U.S. Con st . Am en d. VIII . “ The am en dm en t ‘con ta in s a n arro w pr op orti on al it y

pri nc ip le th atap pl ie s t o n on cap it al sen te nc es .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Ewin g v . Cal ifo rn ia , 53 8 U.S. 11 , 20 , 12 3 S . Ct. 1 17 9, 1 18 5 (2 00 3) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
.

“ ‘In ge ne ral , a se nt en ce wi th in th e li m it s i m po se d b y st atut e is ne it he r ex ces si ve no r cru el an d u nu su al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.’” Id. at12 43 (qu ot in g Un it ed St at es v. Mo ria rty, 429 F.3d10 12 , 10 24 (11 thCir . 20 05 )). “ Thi s i s s o b ecau se we acco rdsubs ta nt ia l d efer en ce t o C on gr es s, as itpo ss es se s b ro adau th or it y to de te rm in e th e types an d l im it s o f pu ni sh m en ts forcri m es .” Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 13 23 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . For t ha t re as on , th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e it
9cl ear t ha t, “ ‘[o]uts id e th e co nt ex t o f cap it al puni sh m en t, su cces sf ul ch al le ng es to th e p ro po rti on al it y

of p art ic ul ar s en te nc es [wil l b e] exce ed in gl y rare .’ ” So le m

v. Helm , 46 3 U.S. 2 77 , 28 9– 90 , 10 3 S . Ct. 3 00 1, 3 00 9 (1 98 3) (qu ot in g R umm el v. Est el le , 44 5 U.S. 2 63 , 27 2, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 13 3, 1 13 8 (1 98 0) (al te rat io ns inori gi na l))
. Inev al ua ti ng anEig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to a no nc ap it al sen te nc e, “ a rev ie win g c ou rt m

us t m ak e a thr es ho ldde te rm in at io n t ha t the sen te nc e im po se d i s gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e to th e o ffen se co m m it te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Reyno ld s, 21 5 F .3d12 10 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f m ak in g th is sh owi ng . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3dat 1 24 3. “ If the sen te nc e is gro ss ly di sp ro po rti on at e, ‘the co urt m us t the n c on si de r th e se nt en ces im po se d o n o th ers co nv ic te d i n t he same j ur is di ct io n a ndth e se nt en ces im po se d fo r co m

m is si on of th e sa m e cri m e in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s.’” Id. (quo ti ng Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 4)
. McDa de ha s n otsh ownth athi s s en te nc e p la in ly vio la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Mc Dad e’s 24 0- m on th sen te nc e—5 2 m on th s b el ow h is gu id el in e
ran ge —fa ll s b etweenth e st atut ory m in im um an d m ax im

um of 1 5 t o 3 0 years. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 1( e). W e ro ut in el y reco gn iz e se nt en ces withi n t he st atut ory li m it s ge ne ral ly do n otvi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d t ha t a d efen dantwho se se nt en ce fa ll s b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um can no t m ak e th e th res ho ldsh owi ng of gr os s d is pr op orti on al it y . See, e.g ., Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3dat 1 24 3; Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 1013 24 & n .4. We als o c an no t s ay th atMcDad e’s di m in is he d m en ta l capa ci ty
warra nt s a f

in di ng of g ro ss di sp ro po rti on al it y . In h ol di ng th atth e ex ecu ti onof a
m en ta ll y ret ard edin di vi du al vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, the Supr em e Co urt st at edth at [m ]ent al ly ret ard ed pe rs on s freque nt ly kn ow th e di ffer en ce be twee n rig ht an d wro ng an d are co m pe te nt to st an d tri al
. Bec au se of th ei r im pa irments , ho wev er, by de fin it io n th ey ha ve di m in is he d cap aci ti es to un de rs ta nd an d pr oc es s in fo rm at io n, to co m m un ic at e, to ab s t ract fro m m is ta ke s an d le arn fro m ex pe rie nc e , t o en ga ge in lo gi cal reas on in g, to co nt ro l im

pu ls es , an d to un de rs ta nd th e reac ti on s of ot he rs . The re is no ev id en ce t h a t t h e y are m or e li ke ly to en ga ge in cri min al co nduc t th an ot he rs , b u t th ere is ab un da nt ev id en ce th at th ey of te n act on im

pu ls e rathe r th an pu rs uant to a pr em ed it at ed p la n, an d th at in gr oup se tt in gs th ey are fo ll owe rs rathe r th an le ad ers . The ir de fic ie nc ie s do no t warra nt an ex em pt io n fro m cri m in al sa nc ti on s, bu t th ey do di m in is h th ei r pe rs on al cu lp ab il it y . Atk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 , 31 8, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 24 2, 2 25 0– 51 (20 02 ). In gr an ti ng McDad e a d own wardva ria nc e o f 52 m on th s, the di stric t co urt sp eci fic al ly too k i nt o a cco un t M cDad e’s pe rs on al cu lp ab il it y inli gh t o f hi s di m in is he d m en ta l capa ci ty, pay in g p art ic ul ar at te nt io n t o t he factth atMcDad e
m ay ha ve si m pl y be engo in g a lo ng with t he gro up an d fi lm in g t he act s atth e di rect io n o f th e o th er m em be rs of t he gro up . The d is tri ctco urt, h owe ve r, fo un d th atMcDad e “ di d m

uc h m or e th ansi m

pl y ho lda cam era.” Thi s fi nd in g was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. As th e d is tri ctco urt s ai d, the ev id en ce cl earl y sh owe d t ha t h e

11was part o f wha t was go in g o n, the reb y en co ur ag in g i t. Invi ew of ou r Eig ht h 4 Am en dm en t p rece de ntan d h av in g c on si de redth e rec or d i n t he cas e, we can no t s ay th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p la inerro r by im

po si ng th e se nt en ce i t d id
. It 5 he ldMcDad e res po ns ib le for hi s co nduc t al on e, aft er t ak in g i nt o a cco un t h is di m in is he d m en ta l capa ci ty. AFFIR MED.

For example, the probation off icer testified that duringthe sexual act with the bee r bottle 4 McDa de’s voice can be hear d on the video say ing “ Open y

our leg s a little wider.” McDa de also be lieves that his sentenc e is unfair beca use his co-de fenda

nts, the ones 5 actua lly eng ag ed in the sexually

expli cit conduct with T.P., coope rate d with the prosec ution and had their f

eder al ca ses dismissed, thereby esca ping a ny imprisonment. We are sy mpathetic to McDa de’s a

rgument, but it does not ex cuse his conduc t and provides no justification for us to alter the sentenc e imposed base d on that conduct. 12