Opinion ID: 812345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unsubstantiated Assertions

Text: Next, Spence argues that the district court committed procedural error because the decision to run his sentences consecutively was based on “clearly erroneous facts.” He argues that the court accepted the government’s representations that “hundreds” of victims had been “terrorized,” without any evidence presented to support such a finding. Spence argues that the court’s factual findings must be based on reliable and specific evidence, but the court merely speculated that the recipients of his calls felt “utter horror,” as the government did not present any witness testimony. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its application and interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Kinard, 472 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court failed to accurately calculate the guideline range, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007) 5 Case: 12-10251 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 6 of 11 (emphasis added). The district court is entitled to make factual findings based on, among other things, undisputed statements within the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), or evidence presented during the sentencing hearing. United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). If a defendant does not dispute the facts in the PSI, those facts are deemed admitted. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). According to the undisputed facts in the PSI, Spence made over 1,000 telephone calls to 29 listed victims. Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330. Because the PSI, without dispute, indicated that at least 1,000 calls were made, and the court referenced only the number of calls during its § 3553(a) analysis to run the sentences consecutively, it did not rely on speculative facts. Smith, 480 F.3d at 1281. Moreover, sufficient evidence was presented in the PSI to allow the court to infer that the victims of Spence’s calls were “terrorized.” The PSI described the calls in graphic detail. The calls described sexual conduct that Spence stated he had performed, or was going to perform, with young girls. The court even listened to one of the recorded calls and found that the words “vile, depraved, horrific, [and] repugnant” were inadequate to describe their nature. The court noted that the victims – the women who answered the phones – would feel “utter horror and 6 Case: 12-10251 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 7 of 11 helplessness” at not being able to help the children that Spence was claiming to molest. No further evidence was required. Cf. United States v. Caro, 309 F.3d 1348, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that expert testimony was not required to find that child pornography was sadistic in nature, when sadism was self-evident in the photographs). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its findings of fact, and the 240-month total sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597.