### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 31216 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MICHAEL SONNIER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 59

- 1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant

- Appellant Michael Sonnier pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 120 months of imprisonment and a life term of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the 120

- month sentence i s substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider various mitigating factors regarding his personal history and characteristics, and thus the sentence is greater than

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 5, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-31216 Document: 00512653562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2014No. 13

- 31216
necessary t o achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. Sonnier also challenges the district court’s imposition of a special condition of supervised release prohibiting him from contact with anyone under the age of 18. Sonnier’s within

- guidelines sentenc e is afforded a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). After consider ing Sonnier’s arguments for a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range, and, with specific reference to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court concluded that a sentence of 120 months of imprisonment was appro priate. “ We traditionally entrust sentencing to the discretion of district courts, which are close to the ground and more cognizant of the details of the offender and offense that should be determinative of the sentence. ” United States v. Murray , 64 8 F.3 d 251, 258 (5th Cir. 2011 ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The fact that we “ might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Considering th e totality of the circumstances as we must, we concluded that Sonnier has failed show that the district court abused its discretion, or otherwise erred, in setting his sentence

. See id. ; Rita v . United States , 551 U.S. 338, 359

- 60 (2007 )

. In regard to the above

- referenced condition of supervised release, Sonnier contends that the ban on contact with persons under age 18 is overly broad, imposes a greater deprivation of his liberty than is reasonably necessary, and does n ot provide fair notice of the prohibited conduct

. As Sonnier did not object to those conditions in the district court , our review is for plain error only

. See United States v. Ellis , 720 F.3d 220, 224

- 25 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 681 (2013)

.

2 Case: 13-31216 Document: 00512653562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2014No. 13

- 31216 When, in Ellis , we were faced with similar facts and appli ed the abuse

of

- discretion standard, we affirmed the impos ition of a substantially similar special condition as part of lifetime supervised release. 720 F.3d at 224

- 26 ; see also United States v. P aul , 274 F.3d 155, 16 5

- 66 (5th Cir. 2001) ( construing ban on indirect contact with minors as not extending to chance or incidental encounters with children ). W e conclude here that any error that there may have been is not clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009 )

. Moreover, e ven assuming arguendo that we were to find clear or obvious error, Sonnier has fail ed adequately to address whether such putative

error would affect his substantial rights or why we should exercise our discretion to correct i t

. See United States v. Williams , 620 F. 3d 483, 496 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 13-31216 Document: 00512653562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2014