
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard ECKHOFF, a.k.a. Richard Elias Eckhoff, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10964
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 10, 2011.
    Linda Julin McNamara, Amanda C. Kaiser, Robert E. O’Neill, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna Lee Elm, Benjamin Singerman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, A. Fitzgerald Hall, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Richard Eckhoff appeals his sentence of 262 months of imprisonment for two counts of producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), one count of receiving child pornography, id. § 2252(a)(2), and one count of possessing child pornography, id. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Eckhoff argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Eckhoff to a term of imprisonment at the low end of the advisory guideline range. Eckhoff persuaded a 16 year old girl to transmit repeatedly live video footage of her naked body. Later, Eckhoff attempted to convince the girl to delete from her computer the messages and pictures sent from Eckhoff and to tell federal investigators that Eckhoff had not seen her naked. Eckhoff also induced two sisters, when they were between the ages of 15 and 17, each to email photographs of themselves in sexually explicit poses and to participate in sexually explicit online conversations. Investigators discovered on Eckhoffs computer more than 600 images of child pornography, including images that Eckhoff had downloaded from a child pornography website that portrayed children in bondage and being assaulted sexually. At sentencing, the district court acknowledged Eckhoffs lack of prior criminal record, his “immaturity” and “difficulty in having social relationships,” and the care he had provided for his parents, but the district court found those factors were outweighed by Eckhoffs decision to “manipulate” for years his victims for his “own sexual gratification” and “literally destroy ... their lives” to the point that one victim “[e]onsidered suicide.” The district court reasonably determined that a sentence of 262 months of imprisonment was necessary to address the seriousness of Eck-hoffs offenses, provide adequate punishment, protect the public, and deter future similar crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We reject as preposterous Eckhoffs argument that he deserved a lesser sentence because he “[njever me[t] with any of [his] victims in person[ ] or ... [had] sex with any of the alleged victims.” Eckhoffs sentence is reasonable.

We AFFIRM Eckhoffs sentence.  