Case ID: f-appx_284/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael LINES, also known as Michael Jerome Lines, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Lines, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 07-30913, 07-30926
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 15, 2008.
    Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western, District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Lines appeals the 240-month non-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography. Lines argues that his non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable because the district court improperly considered certain factors. He contends that a guidelines sentence would have been sufficient to meet the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The district court noted the seriousness of the offense and described how Lines attempted to entice a child to Missouri to engage in sexual activity, traveled to Louisiana with the intent to engage in sexual behavior with a child and create child pornography, and possessed numerous images of child pornography. The images were extremely graphic in nature. The court stated that a non-guidelines sentence was needed for adequate deterrence and to protect the public from Lines. Additionally, the court focused on the character of the defendant, concluding that Lines was a predator. Thus, the record reflects that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lines because it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, -U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, the extent of the variance was not unreasonable given the evidence before the district court. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 419 (5th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.