FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 15, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 52 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 06 -KD-M-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 MELISSA B. GRAY, 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 15 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: App el lantMel is saB. Gray ap pe al s h er 9 6- m on th to ta l s en te nc e, im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt af

te r sh e p le d g ui lty

to on e co un t o f po ss es si ng ch il dpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 5) (B), an d o ne co un t o f

rece iv in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) . On ap pe al , Gray arg ue s tha t h er t ot al sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 “ is no t the pro du ctof e m pi ric al da ta , nat io na l ex pe rie nc e, or in de pe nd en t ex pe rti se an d t hu s d oe s n otsat is fy Sect io n 3 55 3( a)’s o bjec ti ve s.” Gray rel ie s o n aSeco ndCir cu itop in io n, Uni te d Sta tes v. Dor vee , 61 6 F .3d17 4 (2 d C ir. 2 01 0) , andth e Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on s i n Ki mbr ough v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 8 5, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 58 , 16 9 L. Ed. 2 d 4 81 (20 07 ), an d Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 16 9 L. Ed. 2 d 4 45 (20 07 ) to co nt en d tha t, b ecau se th e gu id el in e is co nt rary to the pu rp os es of s en te nc in g, h er s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc e und er a de fere nt ia l ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at41 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 1. To b e subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le , th e d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o i m po se se nt en ces th atare “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edin18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), in cl ud in g t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de 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 th e d efen da nt ’s 2fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t, an d p ro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r

vo cat io na l trai ni ng or m ed ic al care . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of th e o ffen 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 k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , 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 s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d th e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id
. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Ano th er rel ev an t fa ct or

is th e rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e an d t he ap pl ic ab le st atut ory

m ax im um . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (n ot in g, as on e in di cat io n o f rea so nabl en es s, tha t a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was “ well be lo w” th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory m ax im um ), cer t. de ni ed , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9) . W e o rd in ari ly exp ectth ata se nt en ce wi th in th e advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge wil l b e rea so nabl e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 74 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )). “ [W] e are to va cat e th e se nt en ce i f, bu t o nl y if, we ar e le ft wi thth e 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 erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( 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 sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (i nt ern al 3qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

W e h av e p rev io us ly rejectedth e sa m e arg um en t tha t Gray lev ie s ag ai ns t h er se nt en ces , ho ld in g t ha t the Gui de li ne s p ert ai ni ng to ch il d p orno gr ap hy offen se s ad equa te ly tak e in to acco un t em pi ric al da taan d n at io na l ex pe rie nc e. See Uni te d St at es v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 12 01 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Thu s, Gray’ s at ta ckon th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne fai ls , andth e fac t tha t the di st ric t co urt re li edonU.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 to sen te nc e Gray di d n otren de r he r se nt en ces in co m pa ti bl e wit h the pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. Be cau se we ho ldGray ’s 96 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e was subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le , we affi rm

he r se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

4