Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14641
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cr-00160-PGB-LRH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS ROWLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 21, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Rowland appeals his sentence of 300 months of imprisonment
following his plea of guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 2 of 7
activity. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Rowland argues that the decision to vary upward
from his statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment
made his sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Rowland admitted that, on March 24, 2019, he responded to an undercover
agent’s advertisement on a website for adults seeking sexual encounters with
children and, over the next three months, he planned an eight-day tryst with the
agent’s fictitious 13-year-old daughter. Rowland referred to the tryst as a “play
date” and stated that he had “a little . . . [prior experience with] a gf’s 14yo dau.”
He inquired about using condoms, about the girl’s “[o]ral/vaginal/anal
availability,” and if she expected a “sexy/loving,” “mild bondage (blindfolds,
cuffs),” or “slut training” encounter. Rowland also asked if the agent would watch
and record the events and if he wanted to “spit-roast or DP (double penetrate)” the
young girl. Rowland told the agent that he “plan[ned] to check a bag full of fun” on
his flight from Philadelphia, he requested the girl’s body measurements to buy
“sexy outfits,” he inquired whether a weight bench would be available to tie the
girl to, and he shared that he had “been walking around with a permanent hardon
thinking about this.” Rowland asked the agent to have on hand “a good-sized bottle
of baby oil,” “some good, soft cotton rope,” “lots of conventional lube,” “towels,”
“baby wipes,” and “a couple of small jars of vaseline” available “in several
rooms.” Rowland elaborated that he “like[d] to use [Vaseline] to prep an asshole
2
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 3 of 7
before fucking it – its easier to get inside and make sure its well-prepped” and
“nothin kills [his] moood like having to hunt down the lube.” And Rowland
emailed the agent a collection of photographs of items he had purchased, including
bunny ears and a nose, nipple clamps, an anal plug with a pink fur ball attached, a
glass dildo, a silver-colored anal plug, two Ben Wa balls, a vibrator, one pair of
handcuffs, two other pairs of restraining devices, ball gags, and an assortment of
schoolgirl and cheerleader outfits. On June 21, 2019, after the agent collected
Rowland from the airport in Orlando, federal agents performed a traffic stop,
arrested Rowland, and discovered in his luggage the sex toys and outfits he had
referenced in his messages and other paraphernalia used for sexual activities.
Rowland admitted, by failing to object, to the facts and calculations in his
presentence investigation report. See United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277
(11th Cir. 2006). The presentence report stated that Rowland, at 51 years old, had
never been married and had no children, but had been involved with a mother of
three children for nine months. The report also stated that, at Rowland’s request,
the agent had sent a photograph showing a young girl holding a sign that said,
“Hurry down Uncle Tom,” and that Rowland saw the cotton rope he had requested
inside the agent’s car before being arrested. The report described the findings of
Eric Imhof, a psychologist, that Rowland had Pedophilic Disorder and of a
polygraph examiner that Rowland’s nominal reactions suggested he was not being
3
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 4 of 7
deceptive when denying having had sexual contact with a minor. The report
assigned Rowland a total offense level of 27 and a criminal history category of I,
which resulted in an advisory guideline range of 70 to 87 months of imprisonment.
But because Rowland had a mandatory statutory minimum sentence of 120 months
of imprisonment, that became his guideline sentence. United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b) (Nov. 2018).
At sentencing, Rowland requested the mandatory minimum sentence and
highlighted parts of his messages stating that he would not force the girl into
unwelcome activities, but the district court decided to vary upward and sentence
him to 300 months of imprisonment. The district court stated that the statutory
minimum was inadequate to address the seriousness of Rowland’s crime and to
deter him from future similar conduct. The district court explained that it selected a
sentence based on Rowland’s criminal charge, his plea agreement, his presentence
report, the findings of Dr. Imhof and the polygraph examiner, the Sentencing
Guidelines, the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and sentences it
had imposed in other cases. The district court stated that it did not consider
Rowland’s conduct to be “as severe as” a case in which it sentenced a man to life
imprisonment for having bragged about having prior similar experiences and flew
to Orlando with devices in hand intended to “inflict[] pain” on a 12- or 13-year-old
child. And the district court stated that Rowland’s conduct was more serious than
4
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 5 of 7
cases in which it had imposed a 10-year sentence on a 64-year-old man with
bipolar disorder who contacted unwittingly an undercover agent to arrange a sexual
encounter with his fictional 12-year-old; a 365-month sentence on a 35-year-old
man with mental health issues who shared images of child pornography and
communicated with an agent about having sex with fictional 9- and 11-year-old
girls; and a 210-month sentence on a 30-year-old man who made an online inquiry
“for the first time” about having sex with a young girl.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “[A] sentence
may be reviewed for procedural or substantive unreasonableness.” United States v.
Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th Cir. 2008). We must ensure, first, that the
district court did not commit a procedural error by, among other things, “failing to
consider the [statutory sentencing] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Next, we ensure that the sentence is substantively reasonable in the light of the
sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. Because the abuse of discretion
standard “allows a range of choice for the district court,” we will not disturb the
sentence imposed 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
5
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 6 of 7
by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated
by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189, 1190 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rowland’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The district court explained
that the mandatory minimum sentence punished the “least offensive conduct” and
its chosen sentence achieved parity with the sentences it had imposed on other
child predators and addressed the egregiousness of Rowland’s conduct. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. And the district court stated that it found “troubling” Rowland’s
lengthy and graphic planning, his demeaning demand that the child invite him to
come to her, and his resolve to abuse a child as evidenced by his interstate travel
and his transportation of devices intended to satiate his prurient interests. The
district court also explained that Rowland’s “vile” behavior merited discounting
the psychologist’s opinion that Rowland had a below-average risk of offending.
Rowland argues that he was deprived of his rights “to a fair proceeding” and “to
effective assistance of counsel” when he did not receive notice that the district
court intended to impose an above-guidelines sentence, but notice is required only
for a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h), not a
variance from the recommended sentencing range, Irizarry v. United States, 553
U.S. 708, 710–16 (2008).
6
Case: 19-14641 Date Filed: 09/21/2020 Page: 7 of 7
Rowland’s sentence of 300 months of imprisonment is also substantively
reasonable. That sentence is within the “range of reasonable sentences dictated by
the facts of [this] case,” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Rowland’s messages, preparation,
purchases, and journey evidenced that he was a man who longed to and would go
to great lengths to molest a young girl. The district court reasonably determined
that varying upward 180 months above Rowland’s guideline sentence was required
to address the seriousness of his conduct, to deter him from committing future
similar crimes, to protect the public, and to avoid an unwarranted sentencing
disparity. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have affirmed variances of comparable
magnitude. See United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256–57 (11th Cir.
2015) (affirming sentence more than three times as long as the top of the
recommended sentencing range); United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221–23
(11th Cir. 2012) (affirming sentence 113 months above the advisory guideline
range). And the district court sentenced Rowland far below the statutory maximum
sentence of imprisonment for life. We cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion.
We AFFIRM Rowland’s sentence.
7