Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-05-2019
Case Style:
United States of America v. Zackary Ikaika Bryton Thompson
Case Number: 18-11444
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on appeal from the Northern District of Texas (Dallas County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Aisha Saleem
Defendant's Attorney:
If you need a criminal defense porn charge lawyer in Dallas, call Kent Morlan at 888-354-4529 and he will help you.
Description:
Zackary Ikaika Bryton Thompson appeals the within-guidelines 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of sexual exploitation of children by production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). He argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable, because the district court failed to address mitigating factors and did not sufficiently state reasons for the sentence, and substantively
unreasonable, because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, he contends that § 2251(a) is unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause did not grant Congress the power to enact the statute.
Thompson has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In these circumstances, the district court did not procedurally err by failing to explicitly address Thompson’s arguments for mitigation. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 568 (5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the district court adequately stated reasons because a within-guidelines sentence requires “little explanation.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). As to substantive reasonableness, Thompson has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that applies to within-guidelines sentences by showing that the sentence failed to account for the mitigating factors or represented a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, Thompson waived his claim that § 2251(a) is unconstitutional by entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Sealed Appellant, 526 F.3d 241, 242-43 (5th Cir. 2008).
Outcome: Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 18-11444 Document: 00515106188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: