United States v. Sorenson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20640 Document: 00516835320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
____________
July 26, 2023
No. 22-20640 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lehi Sorenson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-137-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Lehi Sorenson pled guilty to receiving and possessing child
pornography. The district court varied upward from the 180-month
Guidelines range and sentenced Sorenson to concurrent terms of 240 months
of imprisonment followed by concurrent life terms of supervised release. On
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20640 Document: 00516835320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-20640
appeal, Sorenson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above-
Guidelines sentence.
We review a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
record reflects that the district court made an individualized assessment and
concluded that the 180-month Guidelines range did not adequately account
for the § 3553(a) factors. Sorenson cannot show that the district court failed
to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or clearly erred in
balancing the factors. See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393,
400–01 (5th Cir. 2012).
Sorenson contends that the district court gave too little weight to his
Guidelines calculations and prior 28-month term of imprisonment for an
earlier child pornography offense. But the “sentencing court is free to
conclude that the applicable Guidelines range gives too much or too little
weight to one or more factors” and “may adjust the sentence accordingly
under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804,
807 (5th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Sorenson also claims that his 60-
month variance represents an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Even assuming a disparity, there is no indication that
any disparity is unwarranted. See United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541,
544 (5th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2