Court Opinion

ID: 9918369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 19:00:31.14303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:42.885599
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40333        Document: 00517031174             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                     January 12, 2024
                                      No. 23-40333
                                    Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Michael Lynn Crisp, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-13-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Michael Lynn Crisp, Jr. pleaded guilty to distribution of child
   pornography, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child
   pornography. He appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 210 months of
   imprisonment on procedural and substantive reasonableness grounds.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40333      Document: 00517031174          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                    No. 23-40333

          We review a sentence for reasonableness in view of the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
   In conducting this review, we first determine whether the district court
   committed any significant procedural error, “such as failing to calculate (or
   improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
   mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence
   based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
   sentence.” Id. at 51. If there is no procedural error or if any such error was
   harmless, we “may proceed to the second step and review the substantive
   reasonableness of the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion.” United
   States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Crisp first contends that the district court procedurally erred by
   selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, insofar as it overruled
   his objections to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the presentence report (PSR). See
   Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. However, the information was based on an investigative
   interview of Crisp’s then common-law wife and a child forensic interview of
   one of her children; results of police investigations, especially detailed
   offense reports and information from interviews with victims and witnesses,
   are generally considered reliable. See United States v. Fields, 932 F.3d 316,
   320 (5th Cir. 2019). Because Crisp’s rebuttal evidence regarding his strained
   relationship with his wife and the complaining child’s prior inconsistent
   statements was insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged information
   was materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable, the district court was
   entitled to rely on the information at sentencing, and there was no clear error.
   See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 229-30 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Next, Crisp contends that the district court abused its discretion by
   denying his motion for a downward variance, which “amounts to a challenge
   to the substantive reasonableness of [his] sentence.”         United States v.
   Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and

                                          2
Case: 23-40333      Document: 00517031174          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                    No. 23-40333

   citation omitted). The district court reviewed the record and the PSR and
   heard the parties’ arguments, including Crisp’s motion for a downward
   variance and his arguments that the application allowed downloading of
   batches of images and that there was no evidence he intentionally sought
   sadistic and masochistic images. The court then determined a sentence at
   the bottom of the guidelines range was appropriate, which is entitled to a
   presumption of reasonableness. See id. There is no merit to Crisp’s
   argument that the trend in varying downward shows the district court erred
   in denying a downward variance. See United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114,
   122 (5th Cir. 2011). To the extent he argues the district court erred in
   balancing the sentencing factors, he is essentially asking us to reweigh the
   factors, which we will not do. See United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435
   (5th Cir. 2013). His disagreement with the district court’s sentencing
   decision is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See
   United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly,
   Crisp has not shown the district court abused its discretion in denying his
   motion for a downward variance or that his within-guidelines sentence was
   substantively unreasonable. See Douglas, 957 F.3d at 609.
          Finally, Crisp asserts the district court erred in relying on the number
   of victims and victim impact statements as a factor in determining the length
   of his sentence. Although a request for a lower sentence is sufficient to
   preserve a general substantive reasonableness challenge, it is not sufficient to
   preserve Crisp’s specific argument on appeal that his sentence was
   substantively unreasonable because the district court erred in relying on the
   number of victims and victim impact statements as a factor in determining
   the length of his sentence. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477,
   481-82 (5th Cir. 2022). Therefore, review is limited to plain error. See
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To prevail on plain error
   review, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects

                                          3
Case: 23-40333       Document: 00517031174           Page: 4     Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                      No. 23-40333

   his substantial rights. See id. If he makes this showing, we have the discretion
   to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation,
   and brackets omitted).
          Crisp has not identified a decision in which we have held that a district
   court may not consider the number of victims or victim impact statements in
   determining the length of a sentence for distribution, receipt, and possession
   of child pornography convictions. Because his theory would require the
   extension of current case law, any error was not clear or obvious. See United
   States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010). Crisp has not shown that
   the district court plainly erred in considering the number of victims and
   victim impact statements when determining his sentence. See Puckett, 556
   U.S. at 135.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            4