USA v. Christopher Wilson
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-60046 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 08/29/2017 for Appellant Christopher Wilson [17-60046]
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
August 8, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:16-CR-76-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Christopher Wilson appeals the 60-month sentence imposed after he
pleaded guilty to failing to register under the Federal Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The sentence was
an upward variance from the advisory guideline maximum sentence of 37
months under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wilson contends that the sentence was
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 08/08/2017
greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing in light of his
mental problems and his history of childhood hardship and neglect.
Because Wilson does not allege any procedural error, we review the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
351 (2007). We “give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S.
The district court considered Wilson’s arguments for leniency based on
his mental problems and the distressing nature of his upbringing. But the
court also took note of Wilson’s prior sex crimes, one involving a 13 year-old
girl and one involving a six year-old. The court gave a thorough explanation
of the § 3553(a) factors on which it was relying, particularly the need to protect
the public and to deter future crimes in light of Wilson’s history and
Wilson simply asks us to substitute his assessment of the sentencing
factors for the district court’s well-reasoned assessment, which is directly
contrary to the deferential review required by Gall. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Further, the degree of deviation was comparable to other above-guideline
sentences we have affirmed. See United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d
526, 531-32 (5th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and affirming a 60-month sentence
where the guideline maximum was 27 months).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
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?