Court Opinion

ID: 9943529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 19:01:01.57716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:11.811422
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50262           Document: 50-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-50262
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                               February 23, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Thomas Alan Arthur,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-774-1
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Thomas Alan Arthur operated a website containing stories and
drawings with graphic depictions of the rape, murder, and sexual abuse of
children. A jury found him guilty on nine counts: three for obscene visual
representations of the sexual abuse of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1466A(a)(1); five for importation or transportation of obscene matters, in

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50262        Document: 50-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                  No. 23-50262

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462(a); and one for engaging in the business of
selling or transferring obscene matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466.
       On his resulting appeal, our court, inter alia, reversed his conviction
on one of the three counts of obscene visual representations of the sexual
abuse of children and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Arthur, 51
F.4th 560, 575 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 846 (2023). On remand,
although the district court altered the sentences for some of the individual
counts, it imposed the same 480-months’ sentence.
       Arthur contends his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment
because it is grossly disproportionate to his conduct. Review of constitutional
challenges is generally de novo. E.g., United States v. Mills, 843 F.3d 210, 217
(5th Cir. 2016) (reviewing Eighth Amendment challenge de novo). The
Government asserts review is for plain error, however, because Arthur did
not adequately raise this objection in district court. Our court need not
resolve this issue because, even assuming the less deferential de novo standard
of review applies, Arthur has not shown he is entitled to relief. See United
States v. Appellant 1, 56 F.4th 385, 389–90 (5th Cir. 2022) (declining to
resolve standard-of-review question because challenge failed under less
deferential de novo review), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1788 (2023).
       We begin by making a threshold comparison between the gravity of
the charged offense and the severity of the sentence. E.g., McGruder v.
Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 315–16 (5th Cir. 1992). In making the comparison, our
court looks to Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), as a benchmark. E.g.,
United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 565 (5th Cir. 2015). Arthur’s conduct
was substantially more serious than the defendant in Rummel, who received
a life sentence. See 445 U.S. at 266, 285 (affirming Rummel’s life-sentence
conviction for “obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses”).              Additionally,
Arthur’s sentence is within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines

                                       2
Case: 23-50262       Document: 50-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                 No. 23-50262

sentencing range of 360 to 840 months, “a convincing objective indicator of
proportionality”. United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th
Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Because the severity of Arthur’s sentence is
not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his charged offenses, it is
unnecessary to compare his sentence with other sentences for similar crimes
in this and other jurisdictions. E.g., Hebert, 813 F.3d at 565–66 (considering
only threshold comparison when sentence was not grossly disproportionate).
       AFFIRMED.

                                      3