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 Decision not for publication.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.

Download PDF
Case: 13-6063 Document: 40-2 Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0419n.06 Case No. 13-6063 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER CHARLES JOSEPH FORRISTEL, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jun 10, 2014 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 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: 13-6063 Document: 40-2 Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 2 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). We AFFIRM. -2-

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?