Opinion ID: 1254641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Sentence Is Substantively Reasonable

Text: Regardless of procedural error, Battiest also argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. `[W]here, as here, the sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, we accord it a presumption of reasonableness.' Zastrow, 534 F.3d at 856 (quoting United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1263, 170 L.Ed.2d 111 (2008)). This presumption... may be rebutted by reference to the statutory sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Price, 542 F.3d 617, 622 (8th Cir.2008). Citing Kimbrough v. United States , Battiest argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Guidelines recommend unduly harsh sentences for child-pornography crimes. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). He argues the Guidelines' recommended child-pornography sentences are based on unsound policy, lack empirical support, and are sentences `greater than necessary' to serve the objectives of sentencing. Id. at 564 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). Thus, Battiest claims the district court abused its discretion by not considering this disparity when sentencing him. We disagree. In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held it was not an abuse of discretion for a district court to vary from the Guidelines based on its policy disagreement concerning the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. Id. at 575-76. We have recognized, however, that Kimbrough did not mandate that district courts consider the crack/powder sentencing disparity and do not act[] unreasonably, abuse[] [their] discretion, or otherwise commit[] error if they do not. United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir.2008). Here, then, even if there were merit to Battiest's argument that child pornography sentences are unduly harsh, an issue which we need not address, we still would not hold the district court abused its discretion by rejecting Battiest's claim. Because Battiest presents no other arguments to rebut the presumption of reasonableness and the district court considered [Battiest's] arguments and found them unpersuasive, United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 869 (8th Cir.2008), we hold his sentence is substantively reasonable.