FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 35 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 3- cr-0 03 62 -TW T-GGB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us BRANDON BIDDY, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Bran do n B id dy app eal s h is 12 -m on th ab ov e-Gu id el in es ran ge sen te nc e

im po se d fo r vi ol at in g t he co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e. On ap pe al , Bid dy 1 co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt re li edup on a cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ctua l fi nd in g i n de te rm in in g h is sen te nc e, an d t he sen te nc e was gre at er than n eces sary to ob ta in th e o bjec ti ve s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm Bid dy’ s se nt en ce. 2 A sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if t he di stric t co urt s el ect eda se nt en ce b as edup on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s. Uni te d Sta tes v. S ha w , 56 0 F .3d 12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Whe n s en te nc in g ade fen da nt , a di st ric t co urt m ay no t re ly sol el y

up on th e g ov ern m en t’s as se rti on s t ha t ev id en ce ex is ts , or su m m ari es of e vi de nc e th e g ov ern m en t i s ab le to pre se nt . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. La wr en ce , 47 F.3d15 59 , 15 67 -6 9 (f actua l fi nd in gs m ad e atin it ia l s en te nc in g he ari ng were cl earl y

erro ne ou s b ecau se no reco rdev id en ce ex is te d d es pi te go ve rn m en t’s s umm ary of ev id en ce tha t i t co ul d p res en t). No ne th el es s, we wi ll

The ter ms of Biddy ’s supervise d rele ase pr ohibited him from owning, posse ssing, or 1 otherwise a cce ssing a

computer. At his revocation hearing , Biddy admitted to acc essinga computer a

nd the interne t to seek out adult pornography . The Gove rnment alleg ed B iddy encounte red c hild pornog raphy as we ll but did notoffe r evide nce at the revoc ation hearing to prove this asser

tion. We reviewa sente nce imposed upon r evocation of supervised r elea se for proce dural a

nd 2 substantive rea sonablene ss under a n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. United States v. Tome , 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 2affi rm

a se nt en ce wh ere an e rro r is ha rm le ss an d n on -co ns ti tu ti on al . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mathe ni a , 40 9 F .3d12 89 , 12 92 -9 3 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) (affi rm in g s en te nc e de sp it e n on -co ns ti tu ti on al Boo ker erro r). A no n- co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss if, co ns id eri ng th e p ro ceed in gs in th ei r en ti rety , th e err ordi d n otaffe ctth e se nt en ce, oron ly hada sl ig hteffe ct . Id . The di stric t co urt cl earl y

erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t Bi dd y acce ss edch il d po rn og rap hy whil e o n s up erv is edrel eas e b ecau se th ere was no ev id en ce p res en te d atth e rev oc at io n h eari ng to supp ort tha t fi nd in g. Se e La wr en ce , 47 F.3dat 1 56 7- 69 . The err orwas h arm le ss , ho wev er, b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re ly on t he in co rrec t fi nd in g i n fa sh io ni ng Bid dy’ s s en te nc e. Se e Mathe ni a , 40 9 F .3dat 1 29 2- 93 . Upo n B id dy’ s o bjec ti on to th e se nt en ce, the co urt s pe ci fic al ly stat editwas im po si ng a te rm

of i m pr is on m en t b ecau se Bid dy vio la te d t he pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t acce ss in g aco m

pu te r an d v ie win g “ an y

po rn og rap hi c m at eri al s wh at so ev er.” Th is li m it edth e co urt’s p rev io us st at em en t tha t Bi dd y ha d “ acce ss edpo rn og rap hi c m at eri al s i nv ol vi ng bo thadul ts an d m in or s.” Th us , th e co urt d idno t b as e Bi dd y ’s se nt en ce o n t he Gov ern m en t’s u np ro ve n a ss ert io n, b utrathe r onth e fac t tha t Bi dd y acce ss eda co m

pu te r an d a ct iv el y

so ug htou t p orno gr ap hi c m at eri al in vi ol at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e.

3Fu rth er, Bi dd y ’s sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Se e Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . The co urt s pe ci fic al ly con si de redde te rren ce, the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se an d t he ne edforco rrec ti on al an d/ orm ed ic al tre atm en t fo r Bi dd y ’s reci di vi stbe ha vi or . Alth ou ghth e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed Bi dd y ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s, i t b as edBid dy’ s s en te nc e o n t he factth athe en ga ge d in co nduc t re la te d t o h is un de rlyin g c on vi ct io ns for rece iv in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. W e h av e uph el d s en te nc es ab ov e th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e whe re the supe rv is edrel eas e v io la ti on pa ral le le d the co nduc t fo r whi ch th e d efen da ntwas or ig in al ly con vi ct ed . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 -7 9 (1 1t h Ci r.), cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Bid dy’ s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

4