FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11744 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6
- 0 0 0 8 5
- CR- 4
- RH
- W CS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s O Z G U R Y I L M A Z E L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 28, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O z g u rY ilm a z e l ap p e a ls h i s 6 0
- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r t r a v e lin g in in te r s ta te
c om m e r c e f

orthe purpos e of

e ng ag i n g i n a s e xua l a c tw i th a m i nor , a vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S
. C
. § 2 42 3(b). A ft erchatt i ng on l i ne w i th an u nd er cover offi ce r w ho w as2

po si ng as a 14-ye ar -ol d g i rl , Y i l m az el w as arre st ed w hen h e a rr i ved atthe si t e of a prea rr anged m ee t i ng w i th t he vi ct i m . F or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , Y i l m az el ar gu es tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by i nc r e a s i ng hi s of f e ns e l e ve l b y t w o l e ve l s , pur s ua nt t o U . S
. S .G . § 2 G 1
. 3 (b )(2 )(B ), fo r u n d u l y i n fl u en ci n g a m i n o r. M o re sp eci fi cal l y, Y i l m azel a s s e rt s tha t§ 2G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) doe s notappl y t o a c a s e i n w hi c h the m i nor i s f i c t i t i ous , a nd tha te ve n i f i ti s appl i c a bl e , the di s t ri ct co u rtdi d notm a ke
s uf f i c i e ntf a c tua l f i ndi ngs t o ap p l y i tt o hi s c a s e . H e a l s o c ha l l e nge s the
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

h i s s e n t e n c e . A f

t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. T he re l evantfa ct s a re stra i gh t forw ar d. O n D ec em b er 5 , 20 06 , Y i l m az el w as i n d i c t e d o n o n e c o u n t o f tr a v e l i n g i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e f o r th e p u rp o s e of
e nga gi ng i n a s e xua l a c tw i th a pe r s on u n d er16 y e a r s of a ge , a vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S
. C
. § 2423( b)
. H e pl e d gui l ty a nd pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. A cc ordi ng t o the un di sput ed fa ct s of the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt (“ P S I” ), Y i l m az el , a 31 -y ea r- ol d r es i dent of T urkey w ho w as i n the U ni t ed S t at es on a B -2 vi saatthe t i m e of hi s a rr es t , began chatt i ng on l i ne w i th an i nd i vi du al id en ti fi ed as “ ci nd ygi rl 71 8, ” w ho cl ai m ed t o b e a14 -y ea r- ol d g i rl i n T al l ahas se e, F l or i da , but , i n f

a c t , w a s a n unde r c ove rF l or i da D e pa r tm e nt o f L a w E nf or c e m e nt
a ge nt . T he da y a ft e rthe i rf i r s tc ha t , Y i l m a z e l s e nt“ c i ndy gi r l 718” a nude pi c tur e of hi m s e l f , i n w hi c h hi s pe ni s w a s e r e c ta nd hi s f a c e w as vi s i bl e . I n s ubs e que nt3

onl i ne c ha t s , he of

f e r e d t o t a ke na ke d pi c tur e s of “ c i ndy gi r l 7 1 8
. ” D ur i ng one e xc ha nge , Y i l m a z e l a s ke d “ c i ndy gi r l 718” w ha ts he thoughta bouts e x. A f t e rs he
r e s p o n d e d th a t s h e w a s “k in d a n e w a t th is ” a n d a s k e d w h e th e rit w o u ld h u r t, Y i l m azel sai d : “ If yo u r p artn er i s p at i en t en o u g h i t w o n ’ t b e so h ard
. . . [b ec] au se i f he r e a l l y tu rn [si c ] y ou on, the m us c l e s on [ s i c ] y ourva gi na w on’ tbe t i ght anym ore . . . [a ] nd you’ l l be w et . ” I n a la te r c h a t, Y ilm a z e l s ta te d th a t h e w a n te d to “m a k e l o v e ” to

“ ci n d yg i rl 7 1 8 , ” an d th atsh e w o u l d n o tg etp reg n an tb ecau se h e w o u l d u se c ondom s , an d sh e c oul d qui ta ta ny t i m e i f i thur t . Y i l m a z e l a ga i n di s c us s e d t a ki ng
n a k e d p i c tu r e s o f

h e r , b u tth e n s t a t e d “ n o tn a k e d I th i n k
. . . i ti s a g a i n s t t h e l a w I thi nk .
. . c a us e u ry oung. ” H e the n i ns truc t e d “ c i ndy gi r l 718” nott o w eara ny
u n d e r we a r wh e n th e y m e t a n d wr o t e th a t , i f s h e g o t h u n g r y , s h e c o u l d “ e a t ” h i m. Y ilm a z e l th e n a r r a n g e d a m e e tin g w ith “c in d y g ir l7 1 8 ” a t a M c D o n a ld ’s in T a l l a ha s s e e , i ndi c a t i ng tha the w oul d br i ng a c a m e r a t o t a ke pi c tur e s of he r . U pon a r r i vi ng a tthe r e s t a ur a nta tthe pl a nne d m e e t i ng t i m e , Y i l m a z e l w a s a r r e s t e d. T h e P S I a s s i g n e d Y ilm a z e l a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f 2 4 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2G 1. 3, a nd r e c om m e nde d a 2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e , pur s ua n t t o § 2 G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) , f or un du l y i nfl uenci ng a m i no r to en g ag e i n p rohi bi t ed se xu al cond uct , and a 2-l evel i ncre as e, pu rs uantt o § 2G 1. 3(b)(3), for usi ng a c om pu ter to “ ent i ce , encourage,4

o f f e r , o rs o lic it a p e r s o n to e n g a g e i n p r o h ib ite d s e x u a l c o n d u c t w ith a m in o r .” A ft er ap p l yi n g § 2 G 2
. 1 , p u rsu an tt o th e c r o s s - r e feren ce o f § 2 G 1
. 3 (c)(1 ), b ecau se the of f e ns e i nvol ve d c a us i ng, tr a ns por t i ng, pe r m i tt i ng, orof f e ri n g o rs e e ki ng by not i c e ora dve r t i s e m e nt , a m i nort o e nga ge i n s e xua l l y e xpl i ci tc onduc tf orthe pu rpose of produ ci ng a vi su al depi ct i on of such cond uct , Y i l m az el ’ s a dj ust ed offe nse l ev el w as 33
. W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , ac cordi ng t o the P S I, Y ilm a z e l’s G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 1 3 5 to 1 6 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. P r io rto th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , Y il m a z e l f ile d a s e n te n c in g m e m o r a n d u m , in
w h ic h h e a r g u e d th a t: ( 1 ) w h ile a d e p a r tu r e f o ra b e r r a n t b e h a v io rw a s n o t a v a ilab le t o h i m , the courtshou l d c o n sid er , und er§ 3 55 3(a) , thatm any peopl e w ho kn ew hi m w e r e s u rp r i s e d b y h i s c o n d u c t a n d c o n s i d e r e d i t a n a b e r r a t i o n ; ( 2) t he
r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

th e c r o s s - r e f

e r e n c e o f § 2 G 1 .3 ( c ) ( 1 ) w e r e n o t m e t b e c a u s e h e o n ly
s e ntnude pi c tur e s of

hi m s e l f a nd pos s e s s e d a ca m e r a a tthe t i m e of hi s a r r e s t ; ( 3) the corre ctgu i del i ne ra ng e s ho ul d b e 46 t o 5 7 m on ths, base d o n a 2 -lev el i ncre as e, pur s ua ntt o § 2G 1. 3( b) ( 3) , f orus i ng a c om put e r , a nd a 3- l e v el r e duc t i on, pur s ua nt t o § 3 E 1
. 1 , fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty; an d (4 ) a sen te n c e o f a y ear an d a d ay, fol l ow ed by depo rt at i on , w ou l d be a suff i ci ent se nt ence i n l i gh t of th e f ac t ors e n u m e r a te d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
.5

A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , Y i lm az el obj ec t ed t o app l i ca t i on of § 2G 1. 3(b)(2)(B) for und ul y i nfl uenci ng a m i no r t o eng age i n p ro h ibi t ed se xu al
co n duc t , a r gui ng tha t , w hi l e the G ui de l i ne s c om m e nt a r y s t a t e s tha t the r e i s a re bu tt abl e pre sum pt i on of un du e i nfl uence i f the defendantw as m o re th an t en ye ar s o l d e rth a n th e m in o r , th e f a c ts o f th e in s ta n t c a s e in v o lv e d o n ly a “f lu r r y o f e m a ils g o i n g b ack an d fo rth ” w i th n o u n d u e i n fl u en ce, o th er th an th e ag en t ’ s w i l l i n g n ess

“ t o say and d o w hat everhe needed t o. ” T he di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed Y i l m az el ’ s a rgum entco n ce rni ng the § 2G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) en h anc e m e ntf orundue i nf

l ue nc e , f i ndi ng tha tw hi l e the r e w a s not
a c tua l undue i nf

l ue nc e , Y i l m a zel ’ s c onduc tw oul d ha ve c ons t i tut e d undue i nfl uence i f there had b ee n a re al vi ct i m i nst ea d o f a n agentpo si ng as a m i no r. A ft er fi n d i n g th atth e cro ss-referen ce o f § 2 G 1 .3 (c)(1 ) w as i n ap p l i cab l e, b ecau se th e g o v e r n m e n t d id n o t e s ta b lis h th a t Y ilm a z e l in te n d e d to ta k e s e x u a ll y e x p l ic it pi ctures of the “ m i no r, ” the di stri ctcourtst at ed thatthe adj u sted o ff ense l evel w as 2 5 a n d y ie ld e d a n a d v is o r y s e n te n c in g r a n g e o f 5 7 to 7 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. B ef ore i m po si ng se nt ence , the di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad read the l ett er s of s uppor ts ubm i tt e d by Y i l m a z e l , butha d notr e a d the va r i ous c e r t i fi cat e s a nd degrees aw ar ded t o Y il m az el because they w er e i n T urki sh. T he courtthen h ea rd Y i l m az el ’ s e xp l anat i on of the ce rt i fi ca t es and d egre es . Y i l m az el al so t ol d t he court6

thathe had con t act ed a w om an atthe T urki sh E m bass y, w ho st at ed thatT urkey
a lm o s t n e v e ra g r e e s to t r a n s f e rp r is o n e r s b a c k to T u r k e y to c o m p le te th e ir
s e nt e nc e s . Y i l m a z e l r e que s t e d tha the be s e nt e nc e d t o t i m e-s e r ve d a nd be s e nt b ack t o T u rk ey t o b e w i th h i s fam i ly
. T h e g o v ern m en tresp o n d ed th atC o n g ress c ont i n u e s t o i n c r e a s e th e s c o p e a n d s e v e r i ty o f p u n i s h me n t f o r th e s e ty pe s of
c r im e s a n d a r g u e d th a t Y ilm a z e l s h o u ld b e s e n t e n c e d lik e a n y o th e rd e f e n d a n t in th e U n i t ed S t at es h av i n g th e sam e p erso n al an d fam i l i al d i ffi cu l t i es. F i n a l l y, Y i l m a z e l a dde d tha t , unl i ke other d efen d an t s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , he w i l l notha ve fa m i l y s up po rtw hi l e i ncar ce ra t ed, as hi s f am i l y w i l l b e fin an ci al l y unabl e t o tra vel f r o m T u r k e y to v is it h im
. A f t e rhe a r i ng the pa r t i e s ’ a r gum e nt s co n cern i ng a n appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a s e nt e nc e of 60 m onths’ i m pr i s onm e nt , w hi c h w a s a tthe lo w er en d o f the 57 -t o-71 -m on th range Y i l m az el fa ce d. T he di stri ctcourt i ndi c a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s , a nd a l l of the fact o rs s e tf

or th i n § 35 53 ( a ) , i nc l ud i ng Y i l ma z e l ’ s go od r e c or d, a nd the s e r i ou s ne s s of the offe nse,
w hi ch, i tst at ed, w as ac coun t ed for i n t he G ui del in es ra n g e. T he di stri ctcourt
n o te d th a t w h ile it w a s s y m p a th e tic to th e h a r d s h ip o f n o t b e in g a b le to h a v e f a m ily
v is its , th e s e n te n c e s h o u ld n o t b e s ig n if ic a n tly d if

f e r e n t b a s e d s im p l y o n th e f a c ts7

that Y i l m az el i s no t fr om the U ni t ed S t at es and w i l l be depo rt ed . T h is ap peal f ol l ow e d. T hi s C our tr e vi e w s a d i st ri c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s de novo, a nd i t s f

a c tua l f i nd i n g s f orc l e a re r r or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or di , 418 F
. 3d 1212, 1 2 1 4 (1 1 th C ir .) , cer t. d en ied , 5 4 6 U .S . 1 0 6 7 (2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er , Y il m az el’s
c ha l l e nge t o t h e § 2G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) e nha nc e m e nt , ba s e d on the f i c t i t i ous na tur e of th e “v ic tim ,” is r a is e d f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l, a n d th u s , o u rr e v ie w is f o rp la in
error onl y. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v . O lano , 50 7 U . S
. 72 5, 73 2-36 (199 3) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T o p re vai l un der th e p lain error s t andard, an ap p e lla n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d ; ( 2 ) its
error w as pl ai n; and (3) the error i m pl i ca t ed hi s s ub stan ti al ri gh t s. W e m ay then
co rrectth e erro r, ato u r d i scret io n , i f th e erro r h as “ seri o u sl y affected the fairness, in te g r ity o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d
. S e c t i on 2G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) pr ovi de s f or a t w o - l e ve l i nc r e a s e i f “ a pa r t i c i pa nt[ of the cr i m e] ot herw i se un du l y i nfl uenced a m i no r t o eng age i n p rohi bi t ed se xu al
c o n d u c t.” U .S .S .G . § 2 G 1 .3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B )
. I n i n t e r v e n in g c a s e la w , w e r e c e n tly h e ld tha t§ 2G 1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ) can a ppl y w he r e the m i nori s f i c t i t i ous , a s “ the f

oc us i s on the defendant ’ s i nt ent , no tw hether the vi ct im i s r ea l or fi ct i t i ou s. ” S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. V a nc e , 494 F
. 3d 985, 995- 97 ( 11th C i r . 2007)
. A ppl i c a t i on not e 3 (B ) t o §8

2G 1. 3 f ur the rpr ovi de s tha t , w he r e a pa r t i c i pa nti s a tl e a s tt e n y e a r s ol de rtha n the
m i n o r , th e r e i s a r e b u tt a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n o f u n d u e i n f

l u e n c e . U. S
. S
. G. § 2G 1. 3 (b )(2) , not e 3( B ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R oot , 296 F
. 3d 1222, 1234- 35 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g th a t th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t m a y e m p l o y , p u r s u a n tt o U. S
. S
. G. § 2A 3. 2, not e 5, a r e butt a bl e pr esu m pt i on of undue i nf

l ue nc e w he n the r e i s a t e ny e a ra g e d if

f e r e n c e )
. Y ilm a z e l’s a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n th e f ic titio u s n a tu r e o f

th e v ic tim is fo recl o sed b y V an ce. H e can n o t est ab l i sh erro r, p l ai n o r o th erw i se, o n th atb asi s. M or e ove r , Y i l m a z e l pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e t o r e but t h e p r e s um pt i on of undue i nf l ue nc e a r i s i ng f

r om t he t e n- y e a ra ge di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n hi m s e l f a nd the

“ m i no r. ” T he pres um pt i on w as am pl y supp ort ed by the evi dence, w h ich i ncl ud ed det ai l ed desc ri pt i on s i n the exchanges betw ee n Y il m azel and t he “ m i no r, ” i n w hi ch Y i l m a z e l s a i d, am o n g othe rthi ngs , tha ts e x w oul d not“ be s o ha r d” be c a us e , i f the
m i nor ’ s “ pa r tne rw a s pa t i e nte nough” he r“ va gi na w on’ tbe t i ght
. . . a nd s he ’ l l be
w e t . ” C f

. R oot , 296 F
. 3 d a t1236 ( a f f i r m i ng di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tde f

e nda nt fa i l ed t o rebutpres um pt i on of un du e i nfl uence, w here defe nd antdi spl ay ed in c r e a s e d k n o w le d g e to in f lu e n c e th e “m in o r ” b y d e s c r ib in g s e x u a l a c tiv itie s in det ai l and st at i ng thatse x w ou l d “ fe el go od ” a nd no tcause herpai n; used pe r s ua s i ve pow e r s , i n pa r tby s t a t i ng tha the w oul d be “ ge nt l e ” a n d “ pa t i e nt ” ; a nd9

u s e d s u p e r io rr e s o u r c e s to in f l u e n c e th e “m in o r ” b y u s in g h is o f f ic e c o m p u te rto
sen d i n st an tm essag es an d sen d p i ctu res o f h i m sel f t o h er, d ri v i n g h i s car acro ss s t a t e s t o m e e the r , an d t e l l i ng he rtha ts he w oul d notne e d t o w or r y a boutbr i ngi ng
m one y t o the i r m ee t i ng)
. P uts i m pl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n appl y i ng the
e n h a n c e m e n t. W e l i kew i se ar e unp er suaded by Y i l m az el ’ s a rgum entthathis se n tence w as unr e a s ona bl e . H e s a y s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our terred b y notgi vi ng a ny “ m e a ni ngf ul
c ons i de r a t i on” t o the f

a c ttha the w oul d b e serv i n g hi s s e nt e nc e i n a f or e i gn pr i s on,
w h e r e h is f

a m ily w o u ld n o t b e a b le to v is it, a n d h e w o u ld b e d e p o r te d a f te rh is
s e nt e nc e , th e r e b y d e p r i v i n g h i m o f f u tu r e w o r k o p p o r tu n i t i e s . H e a l s o c l a i ms t he di stri ct court ov er em ph as i ze d the m andat ory m i ni m um s addres se d i n othe r int ernet
se x-cr i m e c as es i nv ol vi ng d iffe re ntst atut es . H e s ay s thathe shou l d h ave r ec ei ved a bel ow -G ui del i nes s ent ence . W e di sa gree . A f te rU n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a d is tr ic t c o u r t, in de t e r m i ni ng a r e a s ona b l e s e nt e nc e , m us tc or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge un der the G ui del i nes a nd then con si der th e fa cto rs se tforth i n 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 55 3(a)
. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “[ N ] o t h i n g in B oo ker or el se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctco u rt to stat e on t he re cord thati thas expl i ci t l y c on si dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors o r to d iscuss ea ch of the §10

35 53 (a ) f

ac t ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F
. 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). I ns t e a d , i n d i c a t i o n s i n th e r e c o r d th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d f a c t s a nd
c i r c um s t a nc e s f

a l l i ng w i thi n § 3 5 5 3 (a) ’ s f a c t or s w i l l s uf

f i c e . I d. a t1329- 30; T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 . “T h e w e ig h t to b e a c c o r d e d a n y g iv e n § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to ris
a m a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s oun d d i scret i o n of the di s tr i c tc our t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F
. 3d 1353, 1363 ( 1 1 t h C i r. 2006) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S
. C t . 3040 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. B e c a u s e o u rr e v ie w is n o t d e n o v o , w e w ill n o t s u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t in
w ei gh i ng th e fa ct ors, abse nta “ defi ni t e a nd fi rm conv i ct i on thatthe di stri ctcourt
c om m i tt e d a c l e a re r r orof j udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s by a r r i v i ng a ta s e nt e nc e tha tl i e s out s i de the r a nge of r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e s di c t a t e d by the f a c t s of t h e c a s e . ” I d
. W e r e v i e w ad e f e n d a n t ’ s u l t i ma t e s e n t e n c e f or re as on abl enes s i n li g h t o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F
. 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). “ [T ] he party w h o ch allen g es the se nt ence be a r s the bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a so n ab l e i n the l i ghtof b o th [ th e ] r e c o r d a n d th e f a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8
. H er e, the di stri ctcourtw as no tre qu i re d t o exp l ai n p re cise ly ho w i tw ei gh ed
ea ch § 3 55 3(a) fa ct or, and w e f i nd i tpl ai n thatthe cou rt consi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s i n i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e re nd of t h e G u i d el i ne s r a nge . P ut11

s i m pl y , Y i l m a z e l ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha thi s s e nt e nc e , a tth e l o w en d o f the
c o r r e c tly c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s r a n g e , w a s u n r e a s o n a b le . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f f ir m . AF F I RME D.