N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STEVEN B YINGTON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10639

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00349-GM N M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ste ve n B y ington a

ppe a ls from

the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a

n d c ha lle nge s his jury -tria l c onvic tions a nd 168-m onth se nte nc e for re c e ipt of c hild pornogra phy , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2552A(a)(2) and (b); a n d posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2552A(a)(5)(B ). W e hav e jurisdic tion 

# F IL ED APR 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm B y ington’ s se nte nc e , but va c ate the judgm e nt and re m and with instruc t ions. B y ington c onte nds tha

t the c ourt proc e dura lly

e rre d by fa iling to e xpla in why it se nte nc e d B y ington on the re c e ipt c onvic tion a

nd by fa iling to c le a

rly va c ate the posse ssion c ount. Hea lso a rgue s tha t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive l y unre a s ona

ble . As the gove rnm e nt c onc e de s, B y ington’ s c onvic tions for both re c e ipt of c hild pornogra

phy and posse s sion of c hild pornogra p hy ba se d on thesa

m e c onduc t viola te the prohibition aga inst double je opa rdy . Se eUnite d State

s v . Dav e nport , 519 F.3d 940, 947 (9th C ir. 2008). Thus, the posse ssion c o unt m u st be va c ate d. Howe ve r, we de c l ine B y ington’ s invita tion to va c ate his se nte n c e . C ontra ry to B y ington’ s c onte ntion, there c ord m ake s c le ar why the c ourt c hose to se nte nc e him on the re c e ipt c ount. The c ourt a dopte d the Guide line s ra nge tha t c orre sponde d to the re c e ipt c ount a

nd, ba s e d on its e va luation of the18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c t ors, c onc lude d

tha t a se nte nc e within tha

t ra nge wa s a ppropria te . It e xpre ssly sta te d tha t a se nt e nc e be low tha

t ra nge wa s “ c o m

ple te ly out of theque stion.”This e xpla nation is suffic ie nt. Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). M ore ove r, B y ington’ s low-e nd se nte nc e is not substa ntive ly

1 3 - 1 0 6 3 9 2unre a s ona

ble in light of the

se c tion 3553(a

) fa c tors a nd the tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

B y ington’ s se nte nc e , but re m and with instructions to the d istric t c o urt to va c ate the posse ssion c ount, a l lowing for tha t c ount to be re insta te d without pre

judic e if B y ington’ s re c e ipt c onvic t ion should be ove rturne d on dire c t or c olla

te ra l re vie w . Se eDav e nport , 519 F.3d a t 948. AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions.

1 3 - 1 0 6 3 9 3