Court Opinion

ID: 9387017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 15:01:23.777524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.626847
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12533    Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023   Page: 1 of 18

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12533
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        DENNIS DEWAYNE JACKSON,
        a.k.a. Jason Franklyn,
        a.k.a. Franklyn666987,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 2 of 18

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12533

                   D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00076-TJC-MCR-1
                          ____________________

        Before WILSON, JORDAN, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               After pleading guilty, Dennis Dewayne Jackson appeals his
        total sentence of 138 months’ imprisonment for receiving child
        pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). On
        appeal, Jackson argues his 138-month sentence, which is below the
        applicable advisory guidelines range of 151 to 188 months, is both
        procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Jackson also
        contends his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment,
        in violation of the Eighth Amendment. After review, we affirm.
                               I. BACKGROUND
        A.    Offense Conduct
              In March 2022, Jackson pled guilty to three counts of
        knowingly receiving child pornography. The following facts are
        drawn from Jackson’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”), to
        which Jackson did not object.
                On July 3, 2021, defendant Jackson’s brother, John Jackson,
        Jr., invited an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”)
        agent to a private online “chat” group on “Kik Messenger” that
        catered to people interested in sexual activity between “daughters
        and daddies.” The FBI agent was posing as a 14-year-old girl.
        Once admitted to the group, the FBI agent learned that Jackson and
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 3 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                         3

        his brother John were listed as its administrators. The FBI agent
        observed that files containing graphic videos of child pornography
        were regularly shared to the group’s members, including some
        uploaded by Jackson’s brother the same day the agent entered the
        chat group.
               The next day, law enforcement searched a property where
        the brothers maintained separate residences. A subsequent
        forensic review of the cellphone of Jackson’s brother John revealed
        that John had traded child pornography with at least five other
        individuals, including Jackson. Private messages between the
        brothers showed that Jackson had received seven videos and two
        images of child pornography from his brother, some of which
        contained prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit
        conduct.
               Three of these videos, all received on July 3, 2021, formed
        the basis for the three counts to which Jackson pled guilty. All three
        videos depicted adult males penetrating female minors’ vaginas. In
        two of the videos, the minors were fully nude and prepubescent.
        In one of the videos, the prepubescent minor’s eyes were covered
        with silver duct tape, and she performed oral sex on a second male.
              The brothers also discussed a 15-year-old female with whom
        John was communicating. When Jackson asked his brother
        whether the female had sent him anything, John sent Jackson
        photographs of a young female. Jackson responded, “Yummy she
        need to be fuck by us both right now.” Jackson also asked how old
        the female was, and when his brother said the female was 15 years
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 4 of 18

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12533

        old and “looking for a daddy,” Jackson said, “Ok see if she send any
        nudes.”
               In another private message conversation on July 1, 2021,
        Jackson asked to be added back to the “daughters and daddies”
        group, and John added Jackson back. When Jackson asked his
        brother, “Anything good” his brother sent “age difficult files,” to
        which Jackson responded, “Nice.” Jackson also advised his brother
        that he would not save any of the images “this time” and that he
        had to delete “700 pics and vids” previously.
               During a July 22, 2021 interview with FBI agents, Jackson
        admitted receiving approximately 1,500 images and videos of child
        pornography over the last two years, as well as distributing about
        70 to 80 images of child pornography. Jackson also acknowledged
        he was an administrator of the “daughters and daddies” chat group
        and that he had both sent and received child pornography using his
        Kik Messenger account. Jackson said he knew trading child
        pornography was illegal.
        B.    PSI
               Jackson’s PSI assigned him a base offense level of 22 under
        U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(a)(2). The PSI then added: (1) two levels because
        his offense involved a prepubescent minor, pursuant to
        § 2G2.2(b)(2); (2) two levels because he knowingly engaged in
        distribution, pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F); (3) four levels because
        the offense involved material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic
        conduct or other depictions of violence, or sexual abuse or
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 5 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                         5

        exploitation of an infant or toddler, under § 2G2.2(b)(4); (4) two
        levels because he used a computer, under § 2G2.2(b)(6); and (5) five
        levels because the offense conduct involved 600 or more images,
        under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) and note 6 to the commentary. The PSI
        then subtracted three levels for Jackson’s acceptance of
        responsibility, under § 3E1.1(a) and (b), yielding a total offense
        level of 34.
               With a criminal history category of I and a total offense level
        of 34, Jackson’s advisory guidelines range was 151 to 188 months
        of imprisonment. The statutory mandatory minimum for
        Jackson’s offenses was five years in prison, and the maximum was
        20 years per count. 18 U.S.C. § 2552(a)(2), (b)(1).
              The PSI noted that at the defense counsel’s request, a
        psychologist had conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Jackson.
        A copy of the psychologist’s report was attached to the PSI.
                Among other things, the report diagnosed Jackson with
        generalized anxiety disorder and dependent personality disorder,
        suggested he was led by his brother into viewing child
        pornography, and opined that Jackson’s recidivism risk for any
        sexual offense was 3.2%, and lower for a child pornography
        offense. According to a summary of Jackson’s clinical interview,
        Jackson claimed that (1) he had joined chat groups to make friends,
        (2) his brother created the “daddies and daughters” chat group and
        added him as an administrator without his knowledge, (3) his
        brother sent him child pornography unsolicited, (4) he had told his
        brother to stop and deleted the images, and (5) at one point he left
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 6 of 18

        6                      Opinion of the Court               22-12533

        the group. While Jackson admitted viewing and sharing child
        pornography, he claimed it was because he wanted to be part of a
        group and stay connected to his brother. Jackson denied being
        attracted to minors and said the images made him sick to his
        stomach.
        C.    Sentencing Hearing
              At sentencing, the district court noted that it had previously
        sentenced Jackson’s brother John. After confirming that there were
        no objections to the PSI, the district court adopted the PSI and
        found that Jackson’s advisory guidelines range was 151 to 188
        months.
               The government requested a 168-month sentence, which
        was in the middle of the range. The government cited, inter alia,
        Jackson’s and his brother’s deep involvement in co-administrating
        the chat group, Jackson’s careful deletion of images and videos so
        that they would not be found on his phone, Jackson’s admission
        that he received about 1,500 files of child pornography over a two-
        year period, and the violent nature of some of the files the FBI had
        recovered.
               The government discounted the psychologist’s report,
        noting that the report acknowledged Jackson had minimized his
        conduct and may have been deceptive during his interview. The
        government stressed that during his interview with the
        psychologist, Jackson denied conduct that was established during
        the investigation, including his viewing of child pornography and
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 7 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                        7

        being an administrator of the “daddies and daughters” group. The
        government also noted that Jackson gave encouraging responses to
        his brother’s messages about a 15-year-old female.            The
        government argued that the psychologist’s 3.2% recidivism rate
        was highly suspect given Jackson’s deception during the interview.
               Jackson requested a downward variance to the mandatory
        minimum sentence of 60 months. Jackson stated that he had “no
        objection to the Court giving the advisory guidelines respectful
        consideration.” Jackson argued, however, that the guidelines were
        not entitled to substantial weight in light of the U.S. Sentencing
        Commission’s report to Congress, which “shows the problem that
        we have in these kind[s] of cases, especially Section 2G2.2, where it
        doesn’t help the Court to distinguish between offenders based on
        their relative culpability and their dangerousness.” Jackson
        contended the provisions of § 2G2.2 “are outdated,” “concentrate
        most offenders at or near the statutory maximum,” and fail to
        “distinguish between the most culpable offenders,” such as
        Jackson’s brother, and “those who committed minor offenses.”
                With respect to the other § 3553(a) factors, Jackson
        emphasized: (1) his brother’s higher degree of culpability,
        characterizing himself as merely “a follower”; (2) his difficult
        childhood, which included sexual abuse by his father and a cousin,
        physical and emotional neglect by his parents, his removal from his
        parents’ home by child protective services and placement with his
        aunt, his father’s incarceration, his family’s history of mental
        illness, and his own attempted suicide; (3) the continued support of
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 8 of 18

        8                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12533

        Jackson’s wife and aunt; (4) Jackson’s own expressions of remorse
        and a desire for rehabilitation during his allocution; (5) the lack of
        any prior criminal history; (6) the fact that Jackson’s offense did not
        involve advertising, pimping, or trafficking, and there was no
        evidence of “deep-seated pedophilia or predatory sexual conduct”;
        and (7) the psychologist’s opinion that his recidivism rate was only
        3.2%.
        D. District Court’s Sentence

                After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court
        determined a downward variance was appropriate and imposed a
        total sentence of 138 months—13 months below the low end of the
        advisory guidelines range. The district court also imposed a 20-
        year term of supervised release and granted Jackson’s request for
        review every five years to determine if continued supervised
        release is needed.
               In considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court noted
        that the guidelines, while helpful, were only advisory. The district
        court acknowledged that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 had faced significant
        critique suggesting it should be reformed. The district court agreed
        with Jackson that the advisory guidelines ranges calculated using
        § 2G2.2 tend “to skew high” because of “things that are true in all
        child pornography cases,” such as internet or computer usage, and
        made “it hard to differentiate what could be considered less serious
        cases from the most serious type.” As a result, the district court
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 9 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                       9

        observed that the provisions of § 2G2.2 “still need to be looked at
        with caution.”
               The district court stressed, however, that the images
        involved in Jackson’s particular offenses portrayed “horrific
        physical and sexual abuse of prepubescent minors” and that it was
        “really beyond description how bad this material is.” The district
        court noted that while Jackson had not created the images, he had
        “propagated it by his actions, not only in viewing it himself, but
        also being involved in these chatrooms and discussions with his
        brother about” the images “in an approving way.” Jackson’s
        actions also “increase[d] the victimization of the minor children”
        by making the images accessible in the chat group, where it was
        “virtually impossible to call [them] back.”
               The district court agreed that Jackson was less culpable than
        his brother John, who had “other aggravating factors” and received
        a statutory-maximum twenty-year sentence. As a consequence,
        the district court concluded Jackson should receive a lower
        sentence.
               However, the district court also found Jackson’s
        involvement with child pornography to be significant, pointing out
        that: (1) Jackson and his brother “were intertwined in some
        respects,” both using the same chat group and talking with each
        other about the material found there in inappropriate and graphic
        terms; (2) Jackson was denominated as an administrator of the
        chatroom; (3) after leaving the chat group, Jackson then asked to
        be readmitted; (4) Jackson had admitted to being involved in the
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 10 of 18

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12533

        activity for at least two years and to receiving “lots of images”; and
        (5) Jackson’s conversations with his brother “gave some indication
        of interest in being hands-on with at least teenage victims.”
                As for Jackson’s personal history and characteristics, the
        district court acknowledged his “terrible upbringing,” including
        being abandoned by his parents and molested by relatives, and his
        later successful 15-year marriage, noting that he had been a good
        father to his two children and supported his disabled wife.
                 The district court concluded Jackson’s risk of recidivism was
        “uncertain” and that the psychologist’s “psychosexual evaluation
        left a lot to be desired,” making it “less valuable.” The district court
        found that Jackson was not forthright with the psychologist about
        the extent of his conduct, including denying activities he had
        admitted to FBI agents or as part of his guilty plea.
              After the district court pronounced the sentence, Jackson
        objected to its reasonableness, without success, but did not raise
        any procedural errors or constitutional objections.
                            II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
                “We review the reasonableness of a sentence for [an] abuse
        of discretion using a two-step process.” United States v. Cubero,
        754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). We
        first determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable.
        Id. A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the sentencing court
        commits a “significant procedural error,” such as misapplying the
        guidelines or treating them as mandatory, failing to consider the 18
USCA11 Case: 22-12533         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 04/14/2023         Page: 11 of 18

        22-12533                   Opinion of the Court                                11

        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, choosing a sentence based on clearly
        erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the sentence
        imposed. Id.
                Second, we examine whether the sentence is substantively
        unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the
        circumstances. Id. Because the weight given to any particular
        § 3553(a) factor is within the district court’s discretion, this Court
        will not substitute its judgment for that of the district court. United
        States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474, 496 (11th Cir. 2015). “A district
        court abuses its sentencing discretion if it does not consider
        relevant factors that were due significant weight, gives significant
        weight to improper or irrelevant factors, or balances the proper
        factors unreasonably.” United States v. Woodson, 30 F.4th 1295,
        1308 (11th Cir. 2022). We will not reverse a sentence unless “we
        are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court
        committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a)
        factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
        reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
        States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation
        marks omitted). 1

        1 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense
        and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the
        seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
        punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect
        the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational and
        vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
USCA11 Case: 22-12533         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 04/14/2023         Page: 12 of 18

        12                         Opinion of the Court                        22-12533

              At both steps, the party challenging the sentence has the
        burden of showing it is unreasonable. Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496.
        Where, as here, the appellant fails to object to a purported
        procedural error at sentencing, we review procedural
        reasonableness for plain error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754
        F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014).
                      III. PROCEDURAL REASONABLENESS
               As to procedural reasonableness, Jackson argues for the first
        time that the district court erred when it calculated his total offense
        level using U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, the guidelines applicable to non-
        production child pornography offenses. Jackson relies on a 2013
        Sentencing Commission report to Congress criticizing and
        requesting authorization to amend U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, which was
        promulgated by direct congressional mandate. Jackson contends
        § 2G2.2 is not based on empirical data and that the 2013 report
        essentially renders it invalid. 2

        Sentence Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
        Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and
        (10) the need to provide restitution to the victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
        2 Despite Jackson’s claims to the contrary, he did not object at sentencing to
        the district court’s use of § 2G2.2 to calculate his total offense level. In fact,
        Jackson did not object to any of the district court’s guidelines calculations.
        Although Jackson referred to the Sentencing Commission’s 2013 report, he did
        so only to support his request for a downward variance from the advisory
        guidelines range he had already admitted was correctly calculated. Thus, to
        the extent Jackson is raising this alleged procedural error in this Court, our
        review is for plain error. See Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307.
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 13 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                      13

               Jackson’s argument concerning § 2G2.2 is squarely
        foreclosed by our precedent. In Cubero, this Court recognized that
        the Sentencing Commission’s 2013 report is something “a district
        court may certainly consider . . . in choosing the ultimate
        sentence,” but rejected the argument that the 2013 report rendered
        § 2G2.2 invalid or required the district court to vary downward in
        non-production child pornography cases. Cubero, 754 F.3d at 899–
        900. The Cubero Court concluded the district court’s application
        of § 2G2.2’s offense-level adjustments in non-production cases did
        not constitute procedural unreasonableness. Id.
                In an effort to distinguish Cubero, Jackson maintains the
        application of § 2G2.2 in his case resulted in an “absurd sentence
        for a first-time offender who had no physical contact with a minor
        depicted in the images or videos.” This argument is really about
        whether his sentence is substantively unreasonable. And the Court
        in Cubero concluded that the “use of § 2G2.2 as an advisory
        guideline” does not make the resulting sentence either
        “procedurally or substantively unreasonable.” 754 F.3d at 900.
                In any event, these facts do not distinguish Cubero. The
        defendant in Cubero, like Jackson here, was a first-time offender
        who had no contact with children. Id. Moreover, Cubero received
        a 151-month sentence, higher than Jackson’s 138-month sentence.
        Id. at 892.
              The district court here did consider the criticisms of § 2G2.2
        in choosing to vary downward and impose a below-guidelines
        sentence. However, the district court was not free to disregard
USCA11 Case: 22-12533      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 14 of 18

        14                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12533

        § 2G2.2 entirely in correctly calculating Jackson’s total offense level
        and advisory guidelines range. See id. at 900 (stating that the 2013
        report “does not alter the district court’s duties to calculate the
        advisory guidelines range . . . .”). Jackson has not shown error,
        much less plain error, in the district court’s use of § 2G2.2 to
        calculate Jackson’s total offense level of 34. Nor has Jackson shown
        that his 138-month sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
                    IV. SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLENESS
                Jackson also has not shown his 138-month sentence is
        substantively unreasonable. For two years, Jackson participated in
        the “daughters and daddies” group chat, including being
        designated as an administrator for the group. He admitted to both
        sending and receiving child pornography through the group’s
        chatroom. Jackson estimated that he had received approximately
        1,500 images and videos over that two-year period. Jackson also
        admitted to sending between 70 and 80 images to others. As the
        district court noted, some of these videos and images, including
        two of the videos Jackson admitted receiving as part of his guilty
        plea, showed adults committing acts of sexual violence against
        prepubescent children.
               Although Jackson claimed to be a reluctant follower, his
        communications with his brother suggested he was a willing
        participant. Further, the district court found that the psychologist’s
        opinion that Jackson presented a very low risk of recidivism was
        less valuable given that Jackson had not been forthright in his
        interview, denying and minimizing the extent of his own conduct.
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 15 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                       15

                In light of the seriousness of Jackson’s child pornography
        offenses and the uncertain risk he presented of recidivism, the
        district court’s decision not to vary downward any further and to
        impose a 138-month sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
               Jackson takes issue with the weight the district court gave
        the various § 3553(a) factors, but “[t]he weight to be accorded any
        given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion
        of the district court.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832
        (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). The record shows that
        the district court considered Jackson’s mitigating factors, including
        Jackson’s difficult upbringing and childhood abuse, his positive role
        as a husband and father, his continued family support, his lack of a
        criminal history, his lesser culpability compared to his brother, and
        the tendency of § 2G2.2 to result in sentencing ranges that do not
        account for degrees of culpability among child pornography
        offenders. The district court was within its discretion to find these
        factors were outweighed by the need for Jackson’s sentence to
        reflect the seriousness of Jackson’s crimes, to provide just
        punishment, and to protect the public by deterring future criminal
        conduct.
               Moreover, the sentence imposed was below the advisory
        guidelines range and almost half the statutory maximum for
        Jackson’s offense of conviction. See Woodson, 30 F.4th at 1308
        (“We ordinarily expect that a sentence falling within the guideline
        range will be reasonable, and a sentence imposed well below the
        statutory maximum penalty indicates reasonableness.” (quotation
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 16 of 18

        16                     Opinion of the Court                22-12533

        marks omitted)). Jackson has not shown his sentence is
        substantively unreasonable.
                      V. EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM
              For the first time on appeal, Jackson argues his 138-month
        sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the
        Eighth Amendment. Jackson, who was 39 at the time of
        sentencing, contends his 138-month sentence is “almost a life
        sentence” and is grossly disproportionate for a “first-time offender”
        convicted of “non-violent offenses.”
                We review for plain error an Eighth Amendment claim of
        cruel and unusual punishment that was not raised before the
        district court. United States v. Suarez, 893 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th
        Cir. 2018). There can be no plain error when there is no precedent
        from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving the issue.
        United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1266 (11th Cir. 2022).
               The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and
        unusual punishments. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. While the Eighth
        Amendment does not require strict proportionality, it does contain
        a “narrow proportionality principle” that forbids noncapital
        sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. United
        States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 1196, 1214 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation
        marks omitted) (noting that successful Eighth Amendment
        challenges to noncapital sentences are rare).
               In evaluating an Eighth Amendment challenge in a non-
        capital case, the defendant first must make a threshold showing
USCA11 Case: 22-12533     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 17 of 18

        22-12533               Opinion of the Court                       17

        that the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offense
        committed. United States v. Carthen, 906 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th
        Cir. 2018). If the defendant makes this threshold showing of
        disproportionality, we will then consider the sentences imposed on
        other defendants in similar cases. United States v. Flanders, 752
        F.3d 1317, 1342 (11th Cir. 2014).
                As a general rule, sentences within the statutory limits do
        not violate the Eighth Amendment, as we afford “substantial
        deference” to Congress’s “broad authority to determine the types
        and limits of punishments for crimes.” United States v. Johnson,
        451 F.3d 1239, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted).
        Thus, a defendant sentenced within the statutory limits cannot
        make the required threshold-showing of gross disproportionality.
        Id. at 1243.
                Here, each of Jackson’s child pornography offenses carried a
        statutory maximum sentence of 20 years of imprisonment. See 18
        U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). In other words, Jackson faced a possible
        maximum sentence of 60 years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584 (granting the
        district court discretion to run sentences concurrently or
        consecutively). Yet Jackson’s total 138-month sentence fell well
        below the statutory limit for just one of his three convictions. It
        was also below his advisory guidelines range.
USCA11 Case: 22-12533       Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 04/14/2023        Page: 18 of 18

        18                        Opinion of the Court                    22-12533

               Under our precedent, Jackson cannot make the threshold
        showing of a grossly disproportionate sentence. 3 See Johnson, 451
        F.3d at 1243. Moreover, he has not identified any precedent from
        this Circuit or the Supreme Court holding that a total sentence
        below the advisory guidelines range and well below the applicable
        statutory maximum violated the Eighth Amendment. Thus,
        Jackson has not shown his 138-month sentence was error, much
        less plain error, under the Eighth Amendment. See Moore, 22
        F.4th at 1266.
               AFFIRMED.

        3 Jackson cites a 2021 Sentencing Commission study indicating that the
        average sentence for a child pornography offense in the Middle District of
        Florida is 122 months, with a median of 110 months. Because Jackson failed
        to make a threshold showing of disproportionality, we do not consider this
        data. See Johnson, 451 F.3d at 1243 (stating that the court need not consider
        sentences imposed on others convicted in the same jurisdiction for the same
        crime if the defendant failed to make the threshold showing).