Court Opinion

ID: 9388588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 00:00:30.225968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.154853
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60305         Document: 00516719724             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-60305
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                   April 20, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Joshua Christopher Stockstill,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 1:21-CR-80-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Joshua Christopher Stockstill pleaded guilty to production of child
   exploitation materials in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court
   sentenced Stockstill to the statutory maximum sentence of 30 years of
   imprisonment.        He now appeals the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60305        Document: 00516719724        Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60305

          This court reviews “an appellant’s claim that [a] sentence is
   unreasonable for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d
   161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017). “This review is highly deferential, because the
   sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import
   under the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
   defendant.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district
   court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
   accomplish the goals of sentencing, including to reflect the seriousness of the
   offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the
   offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the
   public from further crimes of the defendant.” Kimbrough v. United States,
   552 U.S. 85, 101 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Section 3553(a) also requires the district court to consider “the nature and
   circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
   defendant.” “A sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively
   reasonable, and this presumption is rebutted only if the appellant
   demonstrates that the sentence does not account for a factor that should
   receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
   improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing
   sentencing factors.” Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166. Here, neither party
   contests that Stockstill’s sentence was within the guidelines range. Thus, his
   sentence is presumed reasonable, and Stockstill must rebut this presumption
   to succeed on appeal. See id.
          Stockstill fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Stockstill
   functionally asks us to “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our
   judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do.” Hernandez,
   876 F.3d at 167.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             2