Case: 18-10532 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10532
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00158-RBD-DCI-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERIC BISHOP,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 31, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10532 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Eric Bishop appeals his sentence of 210 months of imprisonment following
his plea of guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. 18
U.S.C. § 2422(b). Bishop argues that his sentence at the high end of his advisory
guideline range is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Bishop to a
sentence at the high end of his guideline range based on the seriousness of his
offense and the need to protect minors. Bishop traveled to have sex with a five-
year-old girl who he thought was autistic and would be unlikely to report the
abuse. After his arrest, Bishop admitted that he was “close” to succumbing to his
desire to molest his two-year-old daughter because she was nonverbal and that he
had contacted at least five other persons in an attempt to arrange sexual trysts with
their children. Bishop had a sentencing range between 168 and 210 months of
imprisonment based on his criminal history of I and an offense level of 35, which
accounted for his use of the internet and his cellular telephone in committing the
crime and the age of his intended victim. The district court reasonably accorded
heavy weight to Bishop’s intention to prey on a child with a disability and his
fantasies about abusing very young girls. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And the district
court stated that it would have varied above Bishop’s guideline range but for his
history of mental-health issues, attempts to commit suicide, lack of criminal
history, successful employment, family support, low likelihood of reoffending, and
2
Case: 18-10532 Date Filed: 08/31/2018 Page: 3 of 3
potential for rehabilitation. We cannot say that the district court committed a clear
error of judgment in balancing the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Bishop’s sentence, which is
well below his statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment, is reasonable. See
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
We AFFIRM Bishop’s sentence.
3