United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2692

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

William Smith

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: April 11, 2016

 Filed: July 15, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

William Smith appeals his 168-month sentence for distribution of child

pornography as substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
I. Background

Smith pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). At sentencing, the district court

1

adopted the presentence investigation report's (PSR) Guidelines calculations.

Specifically, the district court found a base offense level of 22, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.2(a)(2); a two-level increase for material involving a prepubescent minor,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2); a five-level increase for the distribution of child

pornography for the receipt of a thing of value, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(B); a four-level increase for material portraying sadistic ormasochistic

conduct, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4); a two-level increase for the use of a

computer or interactive computer service, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6); a twolevel increase because the offense involved at least 10 but fewer than 150 images,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(A); a three-level decrease for acceptance of

responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and 3E1.1(b); a total offense level

of 34 after accounting for the adjustments; a criminal history category of II; and a

Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. 

The sole contested issue at sentencing was Smith's motion for a downward

variance. The court denied the variance and sentenced Smith to 168 months'

imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range. "In arriving at a disposition," the

district court stated that it had "carefully considered each and every factor under 18

United States Code Section 3553(a)." It recognized its "power to vary from the

advisory guideline range" and "the guiding principle . . . to select . . . a sentence that

is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing." "In

regard to Mr. Smith's case," the court "specifically . . . considered the oral and written

arguments for a variance and the resistance by the United States." In addition to

considering "the individual arguments," the court also considered "collectively

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
whether all of those factors taken into account would be a basis in my mind for a

variance." Thereafter, the court discussed some of the mitigating and aggravating

factors and determined that "[t]he aggravating factors. . . far outweigh any mitigating

factors." The court "found no basis for a variance from the advisory guideline range

of 168 months to 210 months."

II. Discussion

On appeal, Smith argues that although the district court did not procedurally

err in calculating his Guidelines range, his 168-month Guidelines sentence is

substantively unreasonable "[b]ased on his lack of serious criminal history, his

performance on pretrial release, his gainful employment history, his mental health

history, and the circumstances of this offense."

"We review the reasonableness of the district court's sentences for abuse of

discretion." United States v. Canania, 532 F.3d 764, 773 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation

omitted). Smith's 168-month sentence is at the bottom of his advisory Guidelines

range. "[A] sentence below or within the Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable on appeal." Id. (citation omitted). "It isthe defendant's burden to rebut the

presumption and to show that the sentence should have been lower." United States

v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 926 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). "[I]t will be the

unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or

below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable." United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation

omitted).

"Where the district court in imposing a sentence makes an individualized

assessment based on the facts presented, addressing the defendant's proffered

information in its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, such sentence is not

unreasonable." United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation

and citation omitted). "The sentencing judge need only set forth enough to satisfy the

-3-
appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis

for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Starfield, 563

F.3d 673, 675 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation omitted).

"Here, the sentencing transcript indicates the district court considered the

relevant § 3553(a) factors, such as the nature and circumstances of [Smith's] offense

and his criminal history and characteristics; the parties' arguments; and the record,

including [Smith's] PSR, motion for a variance, [and] sentencing memorandum . . . ."

See United States v. Barber, 637 F. App'x 270, 272 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per

curiam). As a result, we conclude that "the district court did not abuse its discretion

by sentencing [Smith] to [168] months['] imprisonment, a presumptively reasonable

sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range." See United States v. Downwind, 736

F.3d 785, 787 (8th Cir. 2013). 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-4-