United States of America v. Sameer Chandulal Patel

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3384
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Sameer Chandulal Patel
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: September 18, 2023
Filed: October 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Sameer Patel pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography,
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). The district court1 imposed a bottom-of-the-
1 The Honorable Shephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Guidelines sentence of 210 months in prison. Patel appeals, arguing that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Levy, 18 F.4th 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses
its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors.” Id. (citation
omitted). Where, as here, the sentence imposed is within the Guidelines range, we
presume that it is reasonable. United States v. Nosley, 62 F.4th 1120, 1130 (8th Cir.
2023) (applying presumption in child exploitation and pornography case).
Patel argues that the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
improperly by giving short shrift to his mitigating circumstances and expert report.
But the court acknowledged that he had no criminal history, was working toward his
Ph.D., and had a five-year-old stepdaughter at home. It nonetheless concluded that
he deserved a Guidelines sentence, instead of a downward variance, because of the
sheer volume of child pornography he possessed and the conversations he had about
abusing a child. It did not have to accept his expert’s opinion that he was not
dangerous. United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2006). Though he
disagrees with how the court weighed his mitigating circumstances, that does not
justify vacating his sentence. United States v. Donahue, 959 F.3d 864, 867 (8th Cir.
2020).
Patel also argues that the sentence creates an unwarranted disparity because,
he says, about 57% of all child pornography offenders receive a downward variance.
That, of course, still leaves about 43% who do not. Sentencing disparity arguments
must compare apples to apples. See United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th
Cir. 2018) (“[A] sentencing disparity argument requires a showing that the appellant
and his comparators are similar in ‘conduct and record.’” (citation omitted)). The
district court thought that Patel was an orange: He possessed the largest cache of
child pornography the court had ever seen, and he sorted the pornography into

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
folders, including one that matched the age and sex of the child he talked about
abusing. Patel has failed to present any comparators in conduct and record, let alone
any that call into question whether his bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is
reasonable.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --