Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Michael Lines, also known as Michael Jerome Lines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-30913
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LINES, also known as Michael Jerome Lines
Defendant-Appellant
________________________________________________________________________
consol. w/ No. 07-30926
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LINES
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:06-CR-50142-ALL
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 15, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-30913
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
2
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Lines appeals the 240-month non-guidelines sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of children
and possession of child pornography. Lines argues that his non-guidelines
sentence is unreasonable because the district court improperly considered
certain factors. He contends that a guidelines sentence would have been
sufficient to meet the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The district court noted the seriousness of the offense and described how
Lines attempted to entice a child to Missouri to engage in sexual activity,
traveled to Louisiana with the intent to engage in sexual behavior with a child
and create child pornography, and possessed numerous images of child
pornography. The images were extremely graphic in nature. The court stated
that a non-guidelines sentence was needed for adequate deterrence and to
protect the public from Lines. Additionally, the court focused on the character
of the defendant, concluding that Lines was a predator. Thus, the record reflects
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lines because
it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently
detailed reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808-09
(5th Cir. 2008). Further, the extent of the variance was not unreasonable given
the evidence before the district court. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d
397, 419 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --