United States v. William Smith ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-2692
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    William Smith
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
    ____________
    Submitted: April 11, 2016
    Filed: July 15, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    William Smith appeals his 168-month sentence for distribution of child
    pornography as substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
    I. Background
    Smith pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (a)(2) and (b)(1). At sentencing, the district court1
    adopted the presentence investigation report's (PSR) Guidelines calculations.
    Specifically, the district court found a base offense level of 22, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 2G2.2(a)(2); a two-level increase for material involving a prepubescent minor,
    pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2); a five-level increase for the distribution of child
    pornography for the receipt of a thing of value, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
    § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); a four-level increase for material portraying sadistic or masochistic
    conduct, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4); a two-level increase for the use of a
    computer or interactive computer service, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6); a two-
    level increase because the offense involved at least 10 but fewer than 150 images,
    pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(A); a three-level decrease for acceptance of
    responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and 3E1.1(b); a total offense level
    of 34 after accounting for the adjustments; a criminal history category of II; and a
    Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment.
    The sole contested issue at sentencing was Smith's motion for a downward
    variance. The court denied the variance and sentenced Smith to 168 months'
    imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range. "In arriving at a disposition," the
    district court stated that it had "carefully considered each and every factor under 18
    United States Code Section 3553(a)." It recognized its "power to vary from the
    advisory guideline range" and "the guiding principle . . . to select . . . a sentence that
    is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing." "In
    regard to Mr. Smith's case," the court "specifically . . . considered the oral and written
    arguments for a variance and the resistance by the United States." In addition to
    considering "the individual arguments," the court also considered "collectively
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    whether all of those factors taken into account would be a basis in my mind for a
    variance." Thereafter, the court discussed some of the mitigating and aggravating
    factors and determined that "[t]he aggravating factors. . . far outweigh any mitigating
    factors." The court "found no basis for a variance from the advisory guideline range
    of 168 months to 210 months."
    II. Discussion
    On appeal, Smith argues that although the district court did not procedurally
    err in calculating his Guidelines range, his 168-month Guidelines sentence is
    substantively unreasonable "[b]ased on his lack of serious criminal history, his
    performance on pretrial release, his gainful employment history, his mental health
    history, and the circumstances of this offense."
    "We review the reasonableness of the district court's sentences for abuse of
    discretion." United States v. Canania, 
    532 F.3d 764
    , 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation
    omitted). Smith's 168-month sentence is at the bottom of his advisory Guidelines
    range. "[A] sentence below or within the Guidelines range is presumptively
    reasonable on appeal." 
    Id.
     (citation omitted). "It is the defendant's burden to rebut the
    presumption and to show that the sentence should have been lower." United States
    v. Goodale, 
    738 F.3d 917
    , 926 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). "[I]t will be the
    unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or
    below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable." United
    States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation
    omitted).
    "Where the district court in imposing a sentence makes an individualized
    assessment based on the facts presented, addressing the defendant's proffered
    information in its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, such sentence is not
    unreasonable." United States v. Stults, 
    575 F.3d 834
    , 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation
    and citation omitted). "The sentencing judge need only set forth enough to satisfy the
    -3-
    appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis
    for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Starfield, 
    563 F.3d 673
    , 675 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation omitted).
    "Here, the sentencing transcript indicates the district court considered the
    relevant § 3553(a) factors, such as the nature and circumstances of [Smith's] offense
    and his criminal history and characteristics; the parties' arguments; and the record,
    including [Smith's] PSR, motion for a variance, [and] sentencing memorandum . . . ."
    See United States v. Barber, 
    637 F. App'x 270
    , 272 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per
    curiam). As a result, we conclude that "the district court did not abuse its discretion
    by sentencing [Smith] to [168] months['] imprisonment, a presumptively reasonable
    sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range." See United States v. Downwind, 
    736 F.3d 785
    , 787 (8th Cir. 2013).
    III. Conclusion
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-2692

Judges: Loken, Beam, Smith

Filed Date: 7/15/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024