United States v. Wilson, Case No. 17-6283

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: COOK, Circuit Judge.
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MITCHELL ERVIN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-6283
• Decision Date: 03 December 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MITCHELL ERVIN WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Case No. 17-6283

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

December 3, 2018

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 18a0606n.06

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

COOK, Circuit Judge. Defendant Mitchell Wilson pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. He appeals his eighteen-month, below-Guidelines sentence. Because the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion, we AFFIRM.

I.

Wilson maintained a file-sharing program on his computer that allowed him to download and share child pornography files. Police searched his computer and found thousands of child pornography images and videos, including depictions of intercourse between adult males and children as young as two. A grand jury charged him with possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and he pleaded guilty.

The probation officer calculated an advisory Guidelines range of seventy-eight to ninety-seven months in the presentence report. Neither party objected to the report, but Wilson did move

Page 2

for a downward variance, which the government countered. The district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed an eighteen-month sentence with ten years of supervised release.

II.

We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We first ensure that the district court committed no procedural error. Id. Here, however, Wilson does not dispute the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, admitting that the district court "followed a well thought out procedure." Thus, we review only for substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2008).

"[A] sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the district court chooses the sentence arbitrarily, grounds the sentence on impermissible factors, or unreasonably weighs a pertinent factor." United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791, 796 (6th Cir. 2011). In essence, a defendant's claim "that a sentence is substantively unreasonable is a claim that a sentence is too long." United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). In making this assessment, we view the sentence "in light of the totality of the circumstances, giving 'due deference' to the sentencing judge." United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 755 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51-52). The fact that we "might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Wilson's arguments fail to persuade us that his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in detail and heard arguments from both parties. As the court saw it, several factors weighed in Wilson's favor and pointed...