Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamy CHURCH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-14
Citations: 517 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 12-30514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamy CHURCH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamy CHURCH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30514.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 14, 2013.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Luke Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Joseph R. Streva, Jr., Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jamy Church appeals the 293-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to four counts of production of child pornography and four counts of using a facility in interstate commerce to attempt to coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual acts. He contends that his within-guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, thus, it is substantively unreasonable.
We review sentences for reasonableness, employing a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and we presume that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5th Cir.2008). The district court considered Church's arguments, the facts of the case, and the appropriate statutory sentencing factors and guidelines before concluding that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. That determination is owed deference, and Church's disagreement with the district court's assessment of those factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 338—39.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.