FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 16 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 02 8- CR-1 -SPM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARK BRADFORD LEE, Defen 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 fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 22 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mark B rad fo rdLee ap pe al s h is 10 8- m on th sen te nc e im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty ple a to rece iv in g a nddi strib ut in g, as well as a tt em pt in g t o re cei ve an d di st rib ut e, ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 )(A), an d po ss es si ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) . Lee arg ue s h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y an d p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le un de r th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Sp eci fic al ly, Lee co nt en ds th at , gi ve n the fla wedna tu re of Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es for ch il d p orno gr ap hy, andhi s m it ig at in g c ha ract eri st ic s, th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in it s s en te nc e. Lee al so no te s the co urt fai le d t o a nn ou nc e th e cal cu la te d Gu id el in es ran ge . After r ev ie w, we affi rm Lee's se nt en ce. Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws the reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e und er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard .” Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . The se nt en ci ng co urt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry ” to co m

pl y with t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g s etforth in§ 3 55 3( a)(2 ), na m el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pr ov id e jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t b y th e d efen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith ne ed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l trai ni ng or m ed ic al care . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d 2ci rcu m st an ces of the off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e, th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es , andth e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Thi s C ou rt wi ll no t re ve rs e unl es s i t i s “ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A sen te nc e m ay

be eit he r pr oc edur al ly or subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 45 9 F .3d11 80 , 11 82 n.3 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). “ A sen te nc e m ay be pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if the di st ric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te s the Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat s the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry rathe r th anadvi so ry , fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect s a s en te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gon za le

z , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), cer t. d en ie d, 12 9 S . Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9) . “ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Id . at 1 32 4. 3Lee h as no t s ho wn h is bo tt om -en d Gu id el in es sen te nc e was un reas on ab le

un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , or tha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in it s s en te nc e. The c ou rt l is te ne d t o a ll of Lee ’s ob jecti on s, ex pl ai ne d i ts rul in g o n e ach on e, an d s us ta in edtwo of t he m . Mor eo ve r, th e co urt sp eci fic al ly referen cedLee’s arg um en ts form it ig at io n i n i m po si ng a se nt en ce at th e lo wes t en d o f th e Gui de li ne s. Lee h as als o fa il edto sh ow the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by fai li ng to ve rb al ly ann ou nc e th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e atsen te nc in g. To be gi n wi th , Lee ci te s n o aut ho rit y

forth e p ro po si ti on th ata co urt co m m it s re ve rs ib le erro r si m pl y by fail in g t o v erb al ly ann ou nc e th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. W it h re sp ectto th e co urt’s ex pl an at io n, “ no th in g . . . requi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o s ta te on th e rec or d th atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s . . . .” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Here, the co urt pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e an d s ta te d i t h adco ns id eredall of t he § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Fi na ll y , Lee’s arg um en t tha t ch il d p orno gr ap hy gu id el in es are co ns ti tu ti on al ly flawedis for ecl os edby ourpre ced en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 20 1 n . 15 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Lee's sen te nc e. AFFIRMED. 4