Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30487 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee

v. AN TH O N Y D AR TE Z D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C R

- 20009- 1

B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * A n t h on y D art ez pl ed gu i l t y t o p osses si n g chi l d p ornograp h y t ran sport ed in in te r s ta te co m m e r c e . S ee 18 U

. S

. C

. § 225 2A ( a) ( 5) ( B )

. Th e di st ri ctcourt sent e nc e d Dar t e z t o 1 20 m o nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nt , w hi c h was t he s t at u t ory
m ax i m um t e r m a nd abo vet he r ang e a dv i s e d b y t he U ni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng G u i del i n es. O n app eal , he c on t en ds t h at h i s s en t en ce w as un reasona bl e becau se t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ga ve t o o m uc h w e i ght t o Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne fac t o r s fav o r i ng puni s hm e nta nd n o tenou gh w e i ghtt o t he fac t o r s c o uns e l i ng m i t i ga t i o n o f t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30487

2 s e n te n c e . H e a ls o co n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r lyw e ig h e dh is di sput i ng t he num ber of por nogr aphi c i m ages t hat he w as c harged w i th pos se ss i ng. H e as se r t s t hat t he di st r i c t c our t m i st akenly beli eve d t hat he w as att em pti n g t o m i n i m i ze t h e ser i ou sness of hi s c ri m e. W he n t he i s s ue i s pr o pe r ly pr e s e rve d f o rappe al , w e ex am i ne w he t he rt he
s e n te n c e r e s u lte d fr o m a n a b u s e o f th e tr ia l c o u r t ’s d i s c r e tio n . R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 127 S. C t
. 245 6, 246 5 ( 20 0 7 ). T h is revi ew f or r eason ableness i s a t w op a r t p r o c e s s . Uni t e d St at e sv . Rowan , 5 30 F. 3d3 79 , 3 81 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. The ap pe l l at e c o ur t f

i r s t e ns ur e s t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t c o m m i tas i gnif i c ant p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r . I

d. If the sentence i s procedurally soun d, t h e app el l ate c ou rt th en con sider s i ts “ su b stan tive rea son a b l en ess . ” I d. T h e G overnm en t c on t en ds t h ese r evi ew st an da rds do not app ly becau se D a rtez d i dn ot m a k e acon tem p ora n eo u s obj ectionto th e se n ten ce im p ose d

. If t hati s s o , o ur r e vi e w w o ul d be f o r pl ai n e r r o r . I ti s no tne c e s s ary t o de t e r m i ne t he s uf f i c i enc y o f

D ar t ez ’ s obj ec t i on athi s se nt enc i ngh ear i ng bec ausehe has fai l ed to show t h at hi s s en t en ce i s i n f i rm e v e n u n der an abu se of di scr et i on s t and ar d. D ar t e z ’ s f

i r s tar gum e nti s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n a bo utt he
n u m b er of i m a ge s w a s th e typ e of cl ea rl y e rron eo u s fa ct- fi n d i n g th a t am ou n ts to p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r . S ee G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S

. C t
. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (20 0 8 ). H ow ever, D art ez of

fered n o e v i den ce i n rebutt alt o t h e G overnm en t ’ s w i t n ess. Th er e i s t hus not hi ng t o s how t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s fa ctu alf i ndi ng w as e r r o n e o u s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F

. 3d 751 , 764 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). N ev erth eless, D a rtez a l so a rg u es th a t his pe rsist en ce in h i s obj ectionto th e n u m b e ro f im a g e s its e lf b e c a m e afa c to rth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly
c o ns i de r e d when i m po s i ng s e nt e nc e . A non- G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e m ayb e f o und
u n reasona bl e if, am on g ot h er r eason s, itassi gn s t oo m u ch w ei gh tto a n i m proper fa c to r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3 d 3 8 9 , 3 9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t
. den i ed ,N o. 08- 30487

3 128 S. C t. 295 9 ( 200 8)

. D art ez cl ai m s th at he got a h arsher sentence i n part bec a u se h i s cou nse l ’ s di sput e aboutt he num berof i m ages w as f

ound t o b e a n i rrit ati n g qu ibble. H ow ever, nothi n g i n t h e rec ord sup ports t h at the court chose D art ez’ s sentence becau se of a di spu t e bei n g m ad e abou tt h e nu m ber of i m ages. T h e act u alreasons a rt i cul ated by the sentenci n g j u dg e f or th e sentence i n cl u d edtha t D a rtez’ s m a terial s w ere gr a p h i c a n d featu redyo u n g ch i l d ren . In t he di st r i c tcour t ’ s vi ew , D ar t ez ’ s ac tof coll ec t i ng t he por nogr aphy m eantt hat h e e n c o u r a g e dth e k in do f a b u s e t h a t w a s d e p ic t e d

. T h e c o u r t la b e le dD a r t e z ’s
ac t i ons as s exualex pl oit at i on and abus e o f ch i l d ren . Al soc ons i der ed w as D ar t e z ’ s hi s t o r y o f

b e i ng s e xua l ly ab us e d as a c hil d. O ne s t at e d pur po s e f o rt he
s e nt e nc e w as t o m ak e pr o fe s s i o nalt r e at m e nta va i l ab l e t o a s s i s thi s o ve r c o m i ng
w h a t t h e co u r t la b e le da s s e x u a l d y s fu n c tio n . T h e di st ri ctcou rt su m m ari zed i t s ana lysi s by st ati n g t h at an u pw ard d e p a r t u r e fr o m th e G u id e li n e s r a n g e w a s w a r r a n t e din lig h to f D a r t e z ’s ch a ra cterist i cs, the cir c u m stan ces in vo lvin g h i s cri m e, a n dh i s refu sa lto
r e c o gni z e t he f

ul li m po r to f

hi s act i on s. D ar t e z fail s t o de m o ns t r at e t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e dp r o c e d u r a l e r r o r . D a r te z a ls o fa ils to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tiv e ly
rea s o n a b le. A“sen ten ci n g co u rt m a y . . . con cl u d e in apa rti cu l a r cas e th a t a
s e nt e nc e w i t h i n t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e i s no tl e ngthy e no ught o s e rvet he obj ectives o f sen ten ci n g.” Un i t e dS t a t e sv . Wi l l i a ms , 517 F

. 3d801 , 809 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). T h a t i s w h a t th e d i stri ct cou rt did in D a rtez’ s ca se. E ve n if a n 87 -m on th
s e nt e nc e w o ul d ha veb e e n r e as o nab l e , a s D ar t e z s ugg e s t s , t hati s a n i ns uf f i c i e nt reason f

or no t d e fer ri n g t o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o i m pose t h e sentence th a t its e le c te d

. S eeG a ll , 128 S. C t
. at597. D art ez’ s m ot i on t o ha ve h i s c ou n selreli evedan d n e w c o u n sel ap poi n t ed i s D I S MI S S E D a s m o o t
. WeA F F I R M.