United States v. Stockstill ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60305 Document: 00516719724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60305
FILED
April 20, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joshua Christopher Stockstill,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:21-CR-80-1
______________________________
Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Joshua Christopher Stockstill pleaded guilty to production of child
exploitation materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court
sentenced Stockstill to the statutory maximum sentence of 30 years of
imprisonment. He now appeals the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60305 Document: 00516719724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-60305
This court reviews “an appellant’s claim that [a] sentence is
unreasonable for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d
161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017). “This review is highly deferential, because the
sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import
under the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
defendant.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district
court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
accomplish the goals of sentencing, including to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the
offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant.” Kimbrough v. United States,
552 U.S. 85, 101 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Section 3553(a) also requires the district court to consider “the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant.” “A sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable, and this presumption is rebutted only if the appellant
demonstrates that the sentence does not account for a factor that should
receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing
sentencing factors.” Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166. Here, neither party
contests that Stockstill’s sentence was within the guidelines range. Thus, his
sentence is presumed reasonable, and Stockstill must rebut this presumption
to succeed on appeal. See id.Stockstill fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Stockstill
functionally asks us to “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our
judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do.” Hernandez,
876 F.3d at 167.
AFFIRMED.
2