FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 11 16 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 3- cr-0 02 81 -J EC-J FK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TIMOTHY KEITH YU KNAVICH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 0, 2 01 0) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Tim ot hy Yukn av ic h app eal s h is 48 -m on th sen te nc e im po se d upo n t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Yukna vi ch was o n s up erv is edrel eas e b as ed on hi s co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy un de r 18 U.S.C. §22 52 (a)( 2) (A), fo r whi chhe was s en te nc edto 41 m on th s i n p ris on fol lo wedby 36

m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. Yukna vi ch co nt en ds th athi s n ew se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le be cau se (1) th e se nt en ce was lo ng er tha n n eces sa ry an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co urt fo cu se d t oo m uc h o n p ub li c sa fety

co ns id erat io ns . I. Yuknavi ch adm it s t ha t h e is att ract edto y ou ng bo y s— us ua ll y th os e b etween th e ag es of t hi rte enan d s ix te en—an d t ha t h e h as pro bl em s co nt ro ll in g h is pe do ph il ic urg es . Yukna vi ch als o h as a hi st ory of a ct in g o n t he se urg es . In 1 97 5 he was s en te nc edto 60 m on th s o f pr ob at io n fo r pe rfo rm in g o ral sex on a te n- y earol d b oy in aho te l cl os et . In 1 99 5 h e was cau gh t, b y hi s wi fe, ag gr es si ve ly m ak in g se xu al ly pro vo cat iv e co m m en ts to a fi fte en -y ear- ol d b oy at a l ib rary. In19 98 he was cau gh t wi thch il d p orno gr ap hy onhi s wo rk co m pu te r an d h e was sen te nc edto 84 m on th s o f pr ob at io n. In 20 02 , Yukna vi chwas a ga in cau gh t wi th ch il d po rn og rap hy, thi s t im e o n h is ho m e co m pu te r. He pl ead edgu il ty to fi ve co un ts of rece iv in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy andin 20 04 he was s en te nc edto 41 m on th s i n p ris on fo ll owe d b y

36 m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. Afte r se rv in g h is pri so n t erm , Yukna vi ch was p la cedonsupe rv is edrel eas e an d b eg anwork in g a t the Gui ta r Cen te r in Atl an ta , Geor gi a. The c on di ti on s o f hi s supe rv is edrel eas e requi redhi m to fol lo w a se x o ffen de r co m pl ia nc e co nt ract . 2Yukna vi ch was c ha rg edwith, an d a dm it te d t o, t he fol lo win g v io la ti on s: (1) he ha d

acce ss to a co m

pu te r; ( 2) he watc he d “ ki d- th em ed ” m ov ie s an d s ho ws; (3) he worke d a t a c hu rch ; an d (4 ) he ha d aon e-an d- a-h al f y ear r el at io ns hi p wi th a 1 twel ve -y ear- ol d b oy whom he m etwhi le work in g a t the Gui ta r Cen te r. Yukna vi ch co nt in ue d t ha t re la ti on sh ip —wi th a y ou ng bo y he adm it te d t o b ei ng att ract ed to —d es pi te rep eat edde m an ds fro m hi s p ro ba ti on off

ic er an d h is em

pl oyer to en d it . Yukna vi ch ig no redth ei r de m an ds an d e ve n wen t o ve r to th e b oy’ s h ou se an d sp en t t im e al on e wit h h im , alt ho ug h t he re i s n o a ll eg at io n t ha t h e m ol es te d t he bo y . Bec au se Yukna vi ch vi ol at edth e te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e, he was subjec t t o ast atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e o f 24 m on th s i n p ris on foreach of t he fiv e co un ts of h is 20 04 co nv ic ti on , for a to ta l o f 12 0 m on th s. His reco m m en de d gu id el in es ran ge was 8 to 14 m on th s i m pr is on m en t fo r vi ol at in g t he term s o f hi s supe rv is edrel eas e. See Un it edSta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 7B 1.4 (a). Th e go ve rn m en t ar gu edfora se nt en ce o f 24 m on th s i n p ris on forth e fi rs t co un t, 2 4 m on th s i n p ris on for

th e se co ndco un t, an d 3 6 m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r each of t he fin al th ree c ou nt s, al l t o b e se rv edco ns ecu ti ve ly. Yukna vi ch arg ue d

This was a violation of a Geor g ia law that prohibits sex offe nd er s from being employed 1 within 1,000 feet of a

churc h. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 42-1-12, 15. 3fo r a s en te nc e o f 24 m on th s i n p ris on forth e fi rs t co un t an d 3 6 m on th s o f

supe rv is edrel eas e fo r eac h o f th e fi na l fo urco un ts , with t he fou r supe rv is ed rel eas e co un ts to be serve d c on cu rren tl y . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edYukna vi ch to 24 m on th s i n p ris onfor th e fi rs t co un t an d 2 4 m on th s i n p ris onforth e se co nd co un t— fo r a t ot al of 4 8 m on th s i n p ris on . The co urt al so im po se d a n a dd it io na l se nt en ce o f 36 m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r th e fi na l thr ee co un ts . The co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ I kn ow t he gu id el in e ran ge , bu t I t hi nkgi ve n you r hi st ory of m ol es ta ti on y ouare s ti ll ha vi ng th os e p ro cl iv it ie s an d I thi nk[y ouare] real ly unabl e to co nt ro l your se lf.” The co urt s ta te d t ha t al th ou gh itdo es no t al way s kno w whet he r a p ed op hi le wil l re ci di va te , “ th ere i s n o s us pe ns e wit h M r. Yukna vi ch . . . . I bel ie ve when y ouge t o uty ouare g oi ng to try to d o t hi s ag ai n.” The co urt was esp eci al ly dis tu rb edby the pro hi bi te d re la ti on sh ip th atYukna vi ch ha d wi th th e y ou ng bo y , con si de rin g Yu kn av ic h’s re ci di vi sthi st ory , th e fac t tha t he was a tt ract edto th e b oy, andhi s ad m is si on th athe ha s fa nt as ie s ab ou t rapi ng y ou ng bo y s. Aft er d is cu ss in g h is cri m in al hi st ory , andhi s cu rren t s up erv is ed rel eas e v io la ti on s, an d the co urt’s fe ar o f hi s re -o ffen di ng , andhi s p os it iv e at tri bu te s, an d o th er i ss ue s s uc h a s h is ail in g fa th er, the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d th atth e se nt en ce i m

po se d was warran te d b y

th e n eedto pro te ctso ci ety fro m th e da ng er tha t Yu kn av ic h wo ul d c omm itfurth er cr im es . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 435 53 (a)( 2) (C). II.

“ W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce i m po se d upo n t he rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r rea so nabl en es s.” Un it edSta te s v . Velas qu ez Vel as qu ez, 5 24 F.3d12 48 , 12 52 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . “ W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n u si ng a two -s te p p ro ces s.” Un it edSta te s v . Tom e, 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Firs t, we l oo k a t “ whe th er the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d a ny si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r,” an d s eco ndwe lo okat “ whe th er the sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Id . “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e reco rdan d t he [18 U.S.C. ] § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs .” Id . The fact or s t o b e co ns id eredun de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) i nc lu de : (1 ) th e na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se an d t he hi st ory

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt ; (2 ) th e n eedforth e se nt en ce i m po se d t o p ro te ctth e p ub li c, pr om ot e res pe ctforth e la w, andpro vi de anad equa te de te rren ce; (3) th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e; an d (4 ) th e se nt en ci ng ran ge est ab li sh edby the gu id el in es . 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) –( 4) . Howev er, “ no th in g . . . requi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o s ta te on th e reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Un it ed St at es v. Sc ot t, 4 26 F.3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). 5III.

Yuknavi ch ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t the sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le . To de te rm in e if a se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly un reas on ab le , we con si de r is su es su ch as wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es ran ge , tre at edth e g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry in st eadof advi so ry , fai le d t o c on si de r th e ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect eda se nt en ce ba se d o n c le arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai le d t o a de qu at el y expl ai n t he sen te nc e it ch os e. See Un it edSta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Here, Yu kn av ic h a dm it s t ha t h e v io la te d t he co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e an d d oe s n otall eg e th atth e d is tri ctco urt re li edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (“ To the ex te ntth atth e d is tri ctco urt h as fou ndfact s, we ac cep t the m un le ss th ey

are cl earl y erro ne ou s.”) . Add it io na ll y , th e g ov ern m en t an d Yu kn av ic h a gr ee tha t, ac co rd in g to th e g ui de li ne s, Yu kn av ic h’s ac ti on s co ns ti tu te d aGrad e B v io la ti on . Both 2 pa rti es als o a gr ee tha t fo r a Grad e B v io la ti on , with Yu kn av ic h’s cr im in al hi st ory ,

Yuknavich and the g overnme nt agree that Yuknavich’ s employ ment within 1,000 fee t of a 2 churc h constituted a Gra de B violation, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 42-1-12, 15, while his other violations wer e the less s er i o u s Gra de C. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1( a)( 2)–(3) . Thus, for the purposes of the guidelines, Yuknavich’ s actions wer e a Gra de B violation beca use “t h e grade of the violation is deter mined by the violation havingthe most serious grade .” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b) 6th e g ui de li ne s re co m m en d apri so n s en te nc e o f 8 t o 1 4 m on th s. The d is tri ctco urt 3 co ns id eredth e g ui de li ne s ra ng e whe n i t g av e Yukna vi ch a se nt en ce tha t i s ab ov e th atran ge bu t b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um . The di stric t co urt al so pro pe rly con si de redth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d a de qu at el y

ex pl ai ne d i ts sen te nc e. Duri ng th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , it di sc us se d Yu kn av ic h’s l on g h is to ry as ape do ph il e, hi s h ig h l ik el ih oo d o f reci di va ti ng , th e n eedto in carc erat e Yukna vi ch to pro te ctth e p ub li c, an d t he se nt en ci ng op ti on s av ai labl e. Yuknavi ch ha s al so fai le d t o s ho w th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . “ Inrev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we m us t, as th e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus , con si de r th e to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces .” Irey, 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. We will va cat e a s en te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e un reas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e 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 err or

of ju dg m en t i n wei gh in g t he § 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 r eas on ab le

Wit hout explanation or support, Yuknavich states that the applicable guidelines rang e is 5 3 to 11 months. That statement contra dicts Yuknavich’ s admission t h at h e committed a Gra de B v i o l ation and his admission that the guidelines rang e for a Gra de B violation is 8 to 14 m o n t h s . Fur ther, to the extent that he is now arguing that his guidelines rang e should be 5 to 11 months, he waived that argument by failing to prese nt it to the district court. See Har rison v. Be nchmar

k Elecs. Huntsville, Inc., 593 F .3d 1206, 1215 n.8 (11th Cir. 2010). 7se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Id . at 1 19 0 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) .

“ [A]lth ou gh sen te nc es ou ts id e th e g ui de li ne s ar e n otpre su m edto be un reas on ab le , we m ay tak e th e ex te ntof a ny vari an ce i nt o o ur cal cu lu s.” To m e, 61 1 F .3dat 13 78 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . “ Howev er, we m us t g iv e due de fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on th atth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, o n awho le , jus ti fy th e ex te ntof t he va ria nc e.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Yukna vi ch ’s arg um en t fo r a 2 4- m on th sen te nc e im pl ic it ly agree s t ha t a s en te nc e o ut si de of t he gu id el in es ran ge is no t u nr eas on ab le be cau se th e to p o f th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e is 14 m on th s. The to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, m ak es th e upwardva ria nc e rea so nabl e b ecau se : Yu kn av ic h h as a lo ng an d rep et it iv e h is to ry

as ape do ph il e who act s o n h is att ract io n t o you ng bo y s; he ha s no t b een de te rredby his pre vi ou s p un is hm en ts ; h e sh owe d d is res pe ctforth e la w by comm it ti ng fou r vi ol at io ns —t ha t we kno w of— of hi s t erm s fo r supe rv is ed rel eas e; he ha d aon e-an d- a-h al f y ear r el at io ns hi p wi th anun de rag e b oy whom he was attract edto , eve n t ho ug h h is em pl oyer an d h is pro ba ti onoff ic er p ro hi bi te d t he rel at io ns hi p; an d t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t the publ ic ne ed s t o b e p ro te ct edfro m Yukna vi ch be cau se “ [h e is ] go in g t o t ry to do th is ag ai n.” Co nt rary to Yu kn av ic h’s co nt en ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co ns id er o nl y 8th e im

po rtanc e o f pr ot ect in g t he publ ic . Ins te ad , itfou ndth atYukna vi ch ’s hi st ory as a pe do ph il e, hi s co ns is te ntdi sr eg ardforth e la w, andhi s l ik el ih oo d o f reci di va ti ng m ad e p ro te ct in g t he publ ic th e m os t i m po rta ntis su e whe n i m

po si ng Yukna vi ch ’s sen te nc e. See Un it edSta te s v . Sha w, 56 0 F .3d13 0, 1 23 9– 40 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Giv enth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e se nt en ce o f a 4 8- m on th pr is on term

fol lo wedby 36 m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e was no t u nr eas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

9