UNITED STATES v. HILL (2021)

Chansellor Ormon Hill appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction of sexual exploitation of children. The sentence fell below the applicable guidelines range.

Even if the Government made a clearly erroneous statement at sentencing regarding the unavailability of civil commitment during supervised release, Hill fails to show that the district court procedurally erred by sentencing him based upon that statement. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We presume that Hill's below-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015), and his mere disagreement with the district court's balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is not sufficient to rebut that presumption, see United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016). Hill fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.