Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41494/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Francis Grimm
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41494

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL FRANCIS GRIMM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-10-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Francis Grimm was convicted of one count of transporting a minor 

in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity,

and he received an above guidelines sentence of 183 months in prison and a 

ten-year term of supervised release. Now, Grimm argues that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because the district court erred when balancing 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41494 Document: 00513669463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2016
No. 15-41494

2

the relevant sentencing factors by giving too much weight to the need for the 

sentence imposed to provide deterrence and rejecting his assertions of remorse.

Because Grimm did not object to his sentence, his arguments are 

reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 

F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish reversible plain error, an appellant 

must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his 

substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). This 

showing has not been made. 

If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the 

guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that this court evaluate 

whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing 

factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 

708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect 

the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that 

should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing the sentencing factors.” Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. 

The district court’s extensive remarks show that it gave due 

consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and committed no error when balancing 

them. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Grimm’s challenge to the district court’s 

credibility finding vis-à-vis his attestations of remorse is unavailing. See

United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41494 Document: 00513669463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2016