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 is 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 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

June 5, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-31216 Document: 00512653562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2014
No. 13-31216

necessary to 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 sentence is afforded a presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 

After considering 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 appropriate. “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, 648 F.3d 

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 the 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 not 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: 06/05/2014
No. 13-31216

When, in Ellis, we were faced with similar facts and applied the abuseof-discretion standard, we affirmed the imposition of a substantially similar 

special condition as part of lifetime supervised release. 720 F.3d at 224-26; see 

also United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 165-66 (5th Cir. 2001) (construing 

ban on indirect contact with minors as not extending to chance or incidental 

encounters with children). We 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, even assuming arguendo that we were to find clear or 

obvious error, Sonnier has failed adequately to address whether such putative 

error would affect his substantial rights or why we should exercise our

discretion to correct it. 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