United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-40333 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Michael Lynn Crisp, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:21-CR-13-1 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Lynn Crisp, Jr. pleaded guilty to distribution of child 

pornography, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child 

pornography. He appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 210 months of 

imprisonment on procedural and substantive reasonableness grounds. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 12, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-40333 Document: 00517031174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 23-40333 

2 

We review a sentence for reasonableness in view of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). 

In conducting this review, we first determine whether the district court 

committed any significant procedural error, “such as failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no procedural error or if any such error was 

harmless, we “may proceed to the second step and review the substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion.” United 

States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Crisp first contends that the district court procedurally erred by 

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, insofar as it overruled 

his objections to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the presentence report (PSR). See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. However, the information was based on an investigative 

interview of Crisp’s then common-law wife and a child forensic interview of 

one of her children; results of police investigations, especially detailed 

offense reports and information from interviews with victims and witnesses, 

are generally considered reliable. See United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316, 

320 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Crisp’s rebuttal evidence regarding his strained 

relationship with his wife and the complaining child’s prior inconsistent 

statements was insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged information 

was materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable, the district court was 

entitled to rely on the information at sentencing, and there was no clear error. 

See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 229-30 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Next, Crisp contends that the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his motion for a downward variance, which “amounts to a challenge 

to the substantive reasonableness of [his] sentence.” United States v. 

Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and 

Case: 23-40333 Document: 00517031174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 23-40333 

3 

citation omitted). The district court reviewed the record and the PSR and 

heard the parties’ arguments, including Crisp’s motion for a downward 

variance and his arguments that the application allowed downloading of 

batches of images and that there was no evidence he intentionally sought 

sadistic and masochistic images. The court then determined a sentence at 

the bottom of the guidelines range was appropriate, which is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness. See id. There is no merit to Crisp’s 

argument that the trend in varying downward shows the district court erred 

in denying a downward variance. See United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 

122 (5th Cir. 2011). To the extent he argues the district court erred in 

balancing the sentencing factors, he is essentially asking us to reweigh the 

factors, which we will not do. See United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 

(5th Cir. 2013). His disagreement with the district court’s sentencing 

decision is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See 

United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, 

Crisp has not shown the district court abused its discretion in denying his 

motion for a downward variance or that his within-guidelines sentence was 

substantively unreasonable. See Douglas, 957 F.3d at 609. 

Finally, Crisp asserts the district court erred in relying on the number 

of victims and victim impact statements as a factor in determining the length 

of his sentence. Although a request for a lower sentence is sufficient to 

preserve a general substantive reasonableness challenge, it is not sufficient to 

preserve Crisp’s specific argument on appeal that his sentence was 

substantively unreasonable because the district court erred in relying on the 

number of victims and victim impact statements as a factor in determining 

the length of his sentence. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 

481-82 (5th Cir. 2022). Therefore, review is limited to plain error. See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To prevail on plain error 

review, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects 

Case: 23-40333 Document: 00517031174 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 23-40333 

4 

his substantial rights. See id. If he makes this showing, we have the discretion 

to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, 

and brackets omitted). 

Crisp has not identified a decision in which we have held that a district 

court may not consider the number of victims or victim impact statements in 

determining the length of a sentence for distribution, receipt, and possession 

of child pornography convictions. Because his theory would require the 

extension of current case law, any error was not clear or obvious. See United 

States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010). Crisp has not shown that 

the district court plainly erred in considering the number of victims and 

victim impact statements when determining his sentence. See Puckett, 556 

U.S. at 135. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-40333 Document: 00517031174 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/12/2024