US v. Chance Christian Kennedy
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00127-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999613805].. [14-4747]
Appeal: 14-4747
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/02/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHANCE CHRISTIAN KENNEDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00127-CCE-1)
Submitted:
June 19, 2015
Decided:
July 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Anand P.
Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4747
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/02/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Chance
Christian
Kennedy
appeals
the
240-month
sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to transportation of child
pornography,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
§ 2252A
(2012).
On
appeal, Kennedy challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
We
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
review
“deferential
a
sentence
for
reasonableness,
abuse-of-discretion
standard.”
applying
Gall
v.
a
United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Where, as here, no significant
procedural
we
error
reasonableness
of
is
alleged,
the
sentence,
totality of the circumstances.”
examine
“tak[ing]
the
substantive
into
Id. at 51.
account
the
The sentence must
be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to satisfy the
goals
of
presume
sentencing.
on
appeal
See
that
substantively reasonable.
18
a
U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
within-Guidelines
(2012).
We
sentence
is
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d
295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
The
defendant bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing
that
the
sentence
is
unreasonable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”
Kennedy
first
asserts
when
measured
against
the
apply
the
Id.
that
we
should
not
presumption of reasonableness to sentences for child pornography
offenses, as the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines did not
result
from
the
Sentencing
Commission’s
2
typical
empirical
Appeal: 14-4747
Doc: 26
approach,
Filed: 07/02/2015
but
instead
Pg: 3 of 4
are
the
result
of
Congressional
intervention designed to increase penalties applicable to child
pornography offenses.
This argument amounts to a policy attack
on the relevant Guidelines, which we have previously rejected.
United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295-96 (4th Cir. 2012);
accord United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367
(5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that, although district courts are
authorized to disagree with Guidelines on policy grounds and to
adjust sentences accordingly, “we will not second-guess their
decisions
under
a
more
lenient
standard
simply
because
the
particular Guideline is not empirically-based”).
Kennedy also argues that, notwithstanding any presumption
of
reasonableness
greater
than
sentencing.
applied
necessary
to
to
his
sentence,
meet
the
the
sentence
statutory
goals
is
of
Kennedy focuses on his own youth, developmental and
learning disabilities, and lack of prior criminal history in
asserting that a more lenient sentence was required.
However,
the district court considered these factors in fashioning its
sentence,
ultimately
Guidelines
range
circumstances
seriousness,
public.
of
to
The
particularly
concluding
was
the
inappropriate
offense
provide
court
serious
that
just
and
sentence
given
the
need
punishment,
observed
given
a
the
3
that
number
and
below
the
the
nature
and
to
reflect
its
to
protect
the
Kennedy’s
of
victims
offense
and
was
images
Appeal: 14-4747
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/02/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
involved, Kennedy’s failure to be deterred by contact with law
enforcement, and his “striking” cruelty and exploitation of his
victims.
Kennedy
In view of these valid considerations, we conclude
fails
to
rebut
the
presumption
of
reasonableness
accorded his sentence.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?