United States v. Swope

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 16, 2023
• Docket: 23-20029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-20029 Document: 00516859824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-20029 FILED August 16, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Andrew Jeffrey Swope,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-84-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Andrew Jeffrey Swope appeals the aggregate 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea convictions for two counts of sexual exploitation of minor children, one count of distribution of child pornography, one count of receipt of child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography. He argues that the sentence is substantively

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-20029 Document: 00516859824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2023

No. 23-20029

unreasonable, and our review is for abuse of discretion. See Holguin- Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). Swope has failed to make the showing required to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court heard all of his mitigation arguments at sentencing as well as the Government’s arguments for a higher sentence. Ultimately, the district court explained that its decision to vary downward to the chosen sentence was based on the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Swope’s arguments on appeal essentially urge us to reweigh the sentencing factors, which we will not do. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). AFFIRMED.