Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10047/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob Seth Thornton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10047

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACOB SETH THORNTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-53-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacob Seth Thornton challenges the reasonableness of the 188-month 

within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for 

receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Thornton

argues that the child pornography Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 et seq., lack 

an empirical basis and, as a result, his sentence is unreasonable. He recognizes 

that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121-

 

* 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

December 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10047 Document: 00513793014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2016
No. 16-10047

2

22 (5th Cir. 2011), but raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review. 

Thornton suggests that the district court erred by including the child 

pornography guidelines in its 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis, an argument 

directly contrary to Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 

(2016), which explains the importance of consulting the guidelines in 

sentencing defendants. Additionally, he has failed to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness that is accorded his within-guidelines sentence. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is 

DENIED as unnecessary. 

 Case: 16-10047 Document: 00513793014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2016