Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12682
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00395-WSD-RGV-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARD NATHANIEL PERAGINE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 8, 2018)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 2 of 6
Leonard Peragine appeals his 340-month sentence for enticement of a child
for sexual activity and possession and distribution of child pornography under 18
U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1), 2252(a)(4)B), and 2252(b)(2). On
appeal, he argues that the district court committed both procedural and substantive
errors. He asserts that the district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable
because it applied the sentencing enhancements found in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 without
regard to a report from the Sentencing Commission in 2013 that those
enhancements are “outdated,” and because it should have instead applied the
Guidelines calculation for enticement of a child for sexual activity under § 2G1.3.
And he contends that the district court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable
because the sentence it imposed was greater than necessary to account for the
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The party who challenges a sentence bears
the burden to show that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
I
We review for procedural reasonableness to ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as (1) improperly calculating the
defendant’s sentencing range, (2) treating the Guidelines as mandatory, (3) failing
2
Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 3 of 6
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, (4) selecting the sentenced based on
clearly erroneous facts, or (5) failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Procedural errors are harmless when the district court would
have imposed the same sentence regardless of a particular Guidelines calculation,
and when the ultimate sentence is reasonable. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d
1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court did not procedurally err. Peragine does not contend
the district court incorrectly calculated the Guidelines. Nor does he argue that the
court improperly treated the Guidelines as mandatory or committed a clear error of
judgment. Instead, he asserts that sentencing him under § 2G2.2—rather than
§ 2G1.3—unfairly “warp[ed] the assessment of [his] offense conduct.” For
support, Peragine points to a report issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in
2013 that critiqued the enhancements available under § 2G2.2 as outdated in light
of modern technology. But this Court has squarely rejected similar arguments
before, and has held on substantially similar facts that “the Commission’s 2013
report does not render the non-production child pornography guidelines in § 2G2.2
invalid or illegitimate”—or, for that matter, “alter[] our appellate duties in
reviewing a § 2G2.2-based sentence or the district court’s sentencing duties or
discretion in any way.” United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 900 (11th Cir.
2014). Peragine’s related contention that the district court was “authorized to
3
Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 4 of 6
consider” the 2013 Report misses the point. The sole question here is whether the
district court abused its discretion when it applied the enhancements available
under § 2G2.2. This Court’s precedent makes clear that it did not.
Nor does anything in this Court’s precedent support Peragine’s suggestion
that, in the case of multiple counts which cannot be grouped together, a district
court must determine which crime Congress intended to be the more serious and
use the Guidelines calculation applicable to that offense. In basing the Guidelines
calculation on the group of offenses that yielded the higher offense level, the
district court here was following the explicit instructions of U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4.
Finally, even if Peragine were correct that the district court committed a
procedural error in applying the Guidelines, the error would be harmless because
the court expressly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless
of the Guidelines calculation:
I made all these guideline rulings to the best of my ability. I believe
that they are right. But in a case like this, at the end of the day, it’s …
ultimately deciding what’s fair and just and consistent with the criteria
under the [§] 3553 factors. And having gone through what the
guidelines would be if I was wrong on all this … regardless of what
my rulings were and whether they were wrong in the guidelines, this
is the appropriate sentence in the case.
For all of these reasons, we reject Peragine’s argument that the district court
committed procedural error.
4
Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 5 of 6
II
For a sentence to be substantively reasonable, the district court must impose
a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the
purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for
the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s
future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider
the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1).
Although we do not formally presume that a sentence falling within the
Guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily “expect” such a sentence to be
reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). The weight
given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). A court
can abuse its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due
significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or
(3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors
unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc). Moreover, a district court’s unjustified reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor
5
Case: 17-12682 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 6 of 6
may be indicative of an unreasonable sentence. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d
1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, the district court’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The
court discussed the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing and gave detailed justifications
for its sentence, which focused on the need to reflect the severity of the crime as
well as the need to ensure that Peragine would not harm children in the future. The
court acknowledged that Peragine was a victim himself when he was a child, but
reasonably balanced against this mitigation evidence the need for a sentence that
properly reflected the seriousness of Peragine’s crimes as well as the necessity to
protect other victims.
Moreover, under our precedent, it is also significant that the sentence that
the district court imposed was not just within the applicable Guidelines range of
360 months-to-life, see Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746, but below both the Guidelines range
and the statutory maximum, which was life imprisonment, see United States v.
Holt, 777 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
6