## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 21 83

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Bi ll y Dura nd o B ay ne s, al so kn own *

as Bil ly D ur an d B ay ne s, al so kn own * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Kid
, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 12 Fi le d: Apri l 4 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Bi ll y Dur an do Baynes pl ed gu il ty to o ne co un t of in te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti on of

an in di vi du al fo r pu rp os es of pr os ti tu ti on , in vi ol at i on of 18 U.S.C. § 24 21

. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d be lo w th e 11 0- 12 0 m on th ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

1

an d se nt en ced Baynes to 96 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Baynes ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at hi s

se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t he 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.In su pp or t of hi s ap pe al
, Baynes cl ai m s th at th e di s t r i c t c o ur t ab us ed it s

di sc ret io n in im

po si ng th e se nt en ce be cau se th e se nt en ce is gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to

ac com pl is h th e go al s an d ob

jecti ve s of se nt en ci ng an d be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai led

to gi ve su ffi ci en t weig h t t o Baynes ’s po st -o ffen se co nd uc t of as si st in g th e
go ve rn m en t.

W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of Baynes ’s se nt en c e un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. Uni t e d St at es v. Mi ll er, 64 6 F.3 d 11 28
, 11 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ ‘A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it (1 ) f a i ls to

co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht
, (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to a n im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or (3 ) co ns id ers on ly th e
ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Sh ak al
, 64 4 F.3 d 64 2, 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d 45 5, 4 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc )).

Our rev ie w of th e reco rd pe rs ua de s us th a t t h e d i s tri ct co ur t care fu ll y

co ns id ered th e rel ev an t 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, ga ve pr op er weig ht to th e fact or s,

an d arri ve d at a su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le se nt en ce. Alt ho ug h Baynes no w cl ai m s th at hi s cat eg or y V I c riminal hi st or y was no t so si gn ifi can t be cau se th e “ la st se rio us fel on y of fen se was 14 y ears pr io r to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on ,” th e di st ric t co ur t
sp eci fic al ly no te d hi s cri m in al hi st or y , reco gn iz in g th at Baynes ha d do ne “ pr et ty ba d th in gs .” Als o, Baynes arg ue s th at th e of fen se co nd uc t was no t so se ve re be cau se he

was no t th e pe rs on who in tro du ced th e m in or to pr os ti tu ti on , he ha d he lp ed th e m in or
ge t away fro m a vi ol en t pi m p, an d al th ou gh h e h a d ta ke n th e m in or to Ch ic ag o fo r
pr os ti tu ti on , th ey

were n ot su cces sf

ul in lo cat in g cl ie nt s fo r th e m in or

. The di st ric t

co ur t al so ad dr es se d th is co nt en ti on , no ti ng th at whi le Baynes ha d he lp ed th e m in or

es cap e a m or e vi ol en t pi m p, Baynes ha d al so pr os ti tu te d th e m in or in th e Mi nn eap ol is

area an d a tt em

pt ed to pro st it ut e h er i n C hi cag o.

- 2

-The di st ric t co ur t al so va rie d be lo w th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge in res po ns e

to th e po st -o ffen se ass is ta nc e Baynes pro vi de d t o th e go ve rn m en t. Baynes as si st ed th e go ve rn m en t wit h in fo rm at io n a bo ut ot he rs in vo lv ed in juv en il e tra ffi ck in g an d

pr os ti tu ti on

. In im

po si ng th e 96 -m on t h s e n t e nc e, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at , ha d Baynes no t pr ov id e t h e a s s i s t a nc e he di d aft er hi s arre st , th e co ur t wou ld ha ve

se nt en ced hi m to th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 12 0 m on th s im

pr is on m en t i n s t e a d

. W he re, as he re, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se s a be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce, “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Uni te d St at es v. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The se nt en ce is no t m ad e un reas on ab le by th e di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to go al on g wit h th e 60 -m on th

se nt en ce pr op os ed by Baynes

. See Uni te d St at es v. St at m an , 60 4 F.3 d 52 9, 53 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In th e ab se nc e of an y ev id en ce su gg es ti ng ab us e of di sc ret io n, we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 3

-