USA v. Christopher Forristel
Per Curiam OPINION filed : Forristel's sentence is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judges; Algenon L. Marbley, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0419n.06
Case No. 13-6063
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHRISTOPHER CHARLES JOSEPH
Jun 10, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: SUTTON and COOK, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY, District Judge
PER CURIAM. Christopher Forristel appeals his 151-month, within-guidelines sentence
for transporting child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). We affirm.
Forristel pleaded guilty to the transportation charge, admitting that he downloaded
22 videos of child pornography on his laptop in his California residence and then moved—with
his computer—to Kentucky.
At sentencing, the district court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 151 to 188
months’ imprisonment, reflecting a base offense level of 22 for transportation convictions.
See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(a)(2). Forristel offered no challenge to this calculation, arguing that the
The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Case No. 13-6063
United States v. Forristel
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified a sentence of 108 months, the bottom of the guidelines
range for defendants convicted of possessing child pornography. See U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(a)(1).
According to Forristel, though he technically transported child pornography, his conduct was “no
worse than” possession because he never transported it for distribution purposes.
On appeal, Forristel argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence in rejecting his request for a below-guidelines sentence.
A presumption of
reasonableness, however, applies to Forristel’s within-guidelines sentence, see United States v.
Overmyer, 663 F.3d 862, 864 (6th Cir. 2011), and he fails to rebut that presumption. As the
district court reasonably concluded, this is “not a case of just simple possession” because
Forristel “transported [his] computer [containing child pornography] actively and willingly from
one state to another.” (R. 51, Sentencing R. at 50−51.) Moreover, the “fact that the district court
did not give the defendant the exact sentence he sought is not a cognizable basis to appeal.”
United States v. Jackson, 466 F.3d 537, 540 (6th Cir. 2006).
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?