FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 81 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 37 -SPM -AK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us ARTHUR BRENT STANLEY, a.k .a. Sta n Yat es , a.k .a. Sta nl ey

Yate s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 1)Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Arth urBren t St an le y

ap pe al s h is to ta l 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e fo r rec ei ptan d di st rib ut io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy in v io lati on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 )(A) an d (b )(1 ), an d p os se ss io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(5 )(B) . On ap pe al , Stanl ey arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo -p oi ntsen te nc e en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. St an le y als o a rg ue s tha t the co urt erredinde nyin g atwo -p oi nt se nt en ce re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 . I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r a cl ear e rro r st an da rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. J

ordi, 41 8 F .3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Fo r a fac tu al fin di ng to be cle arl y

erro ne ou s, thi s co urt, af

te r rev ie win g a ll of t he ev id en ce, m us t be lef t wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m mit te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z-Lo pe z , 36 3 F .3d11 34 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 )(quo ta ti on om itte d) . The g ov ern m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce an y

fact s n eces sa ry

to supp ort a s en te nc e en ha nc em en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Aske w , 19 3 F .3d11 81 , 11 83 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).
2Sect io n 3 C1 .1 o f th e Gui de li ne s s tate s tha t the ba se off en se lev el is in crea se d b y

two po in ts if the de fen da nt“ wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct edor i m

pe de d, o r at te m pt edto ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , th e adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e wit h re sp ectto th e in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or s en te nc in g” of t he ch arg edco nduc t. U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Acco rd in g t o t he ap pl ic at io n n ot es , th is in cl ud es in st ru ct in g a no th er t o de st ro y or c on ceal m at eri al ev id en ce an d p ro vi di ng m at eri al ly fals e in fo rm at io n t o th e co urt. Id. , comm en t. n .4(D) , (F). The co m m en ts de fin e “ m at eri al ” as an y ev id en ce, fac t, o r in fo rm at io n tha t “ wou ldten d t o i nf lu en ce o r affe ctth e is su e un de r de te rm in at io n.” Id. , comm en t. n .6. Inth is cas e, th e g ov ern m en t o ffer edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e co urt t o fi nd by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t St an le y en ga ge d i n m

ul ti pl e in st an ces of ob st ru ct iv e b eh av io r. Sta nl ey m is rep res en te d h im se lf a s “ St an le y Yate s” aft er h is arre st , us in g t he fal se na m e dur in g h is in it ia l ap pe aran ce an d i n d oc um en ts fil ed with t he co urt. St an le y

als o i ns tru ct edan ot he r pe rs on to ch eckif h is cam pe r ha d be ensearch edby the po li ce an d t o re m ov e it em s. Las tl y , Stanl ey fal se ly ind ic at ed on th e fi na nc ia l af

fid av itth athe fil edwith t he co urt tha t h e o wne d n o re al est at e, au to m ob il es , or o th er v al uabl e p ro pe rty. Alt ern at iv el y , any erro r is ha rm le ss be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed St an le y be lo w th e g ui de li ne ran ge an d e xp li ci tl y st at edth atit s re so lu ti on of 3St an le y ’s ob jecti on di d n otaffe ctth e to ta l s en te nc e im po se d. Ev enif b ot h o f th e m at te rs ad dr es se d o n app eal ha d b eenres ol ve d i n S ta nl ey ’s fav or , th e h ig h- en d o f hi s g ui de li ne ran ge wou ldha ve be en21 0 m on th s (a dju st edoff en se lev el 35 an d 16 8- 21 0 m on th s b ei ng th e am en de d ra ng e). St an le y do es no t co nt en d t ha t h is se nt en ce was un reas on ab ly sev ere, an d t he reco rddo es no t s ho w th ata 30 -m on th va ria nc e wou ldbe un reas on ab le . II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r a cl ear e rro r st an da rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. J

ordi, 41 8 F .3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e h av e h el d t ha t,

“ [b ]ecaus e d em on st rat io n o f whe th er o r no t the de fen dantha s p ers on al ly accep te d res po ns ib il ity

forhi s cr im in al co nduc t re qu ire s a c on si de rat io n o f bo th ob jecti ve fact or s an d s ub

jecti ve co ns id erat io ns of t he de fen da nt 's d em ean oran d s in ceri ty, th e d is tri ctco urt's de te rm in at io n wi ll no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss itis witho ut fo un da ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C as ti ll o- Val en ci a , 91 7 F .2d49 4, 5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng , by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the factua l b as is fora se nt en ce re du ct io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. As kew , 19 3 F.3 d 1 18 1, 1 18 3 n .3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Sect io n 3 E1.1 of the Gui de li ne s s ta te s tha t the ba se off en se lev el is de crea se d b y

two po in ts if the de fen da nt“ cl earl y de m on st rat es acce pt an ce o f 4res po ns ib il ity forhi s o ffen se .” U.S.S.G § 3 E1.1 (a). Th e ap pl ic at io n n ot es ex pl ai n th atco nduc t re su lt in g i n a n o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t “ or di na ril y in di cat es th atth e d efen da ntha s n otacce pt edres po ns ib il it y .” Id ., comm en t. n .4. Howev er, the re m ay

be “ ex tra or di na ry

cas es ” in whi chbo th ad

jus tm en ts are ap pr op ria te . Id. Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt h ada rat io na l fo un da ti on forde nyin g t he ad jus tm en t, p art ic ul arl y

inli gh t o f th e o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t. Th e co urt fo un d, b ot h i nd ep en de nt ly andby accep ti ng th e fac tu al all eg at io ns inth e PSI, tha t St an le y

ha d e ng ag edinm

ul ti pl e in st an ces of o bs tru ct iv e b eh av io r. Alt ern at iv el y , as i n Is su e One , any po ss ib le erro r is ha rm le ss . The d is tri ct co urt d is cu ss edbo th Sta nl ey ’s ob jecti on to th e o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t an d h is ob

jecti on to th e d en ia l o f anacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y reduc ti on as a si ng le ob jecti on . Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt’s ex pl ic itst at em en t tha t i ts res ol ut io n o f St an le y ’s ob

jecti on di d n otaffe ctth e to ta l s en te nc e im po se d e nc om

pa ss edth is is su e as well . AFFIRMED .

5