USA v. Shaun Dynes, No. 11-11212 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-11212 Document: 00512026639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-11212 Summary Calendar October 19, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN P. DYNES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-104-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shaun P. Dynes appeals from the 105-month below-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for distribution of child pornography. He argues only that the district court erred by imposing a fivelevel enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) based upon its finding that Dynes received, or expected to receive, child pornography in exchange for his sharing of child pornography images on a peer-to-peer network. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-11212 Document: 00512026639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 No. 11-11212 As part of our review of the procedural reasonableness of the sentence imposed, we must consider whether the district court erred in its calculation of the applicable guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court s interpretation and application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez-Mesa, 443 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2006). This court has upheld § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) enhancements in several prior cases presenting facts similar to those at issue here. See United States v. Onken, 440 F. App x 304, 305 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); United States v. Roman, 393 F. App x 149, 149-50 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); United States v. Moore, 328 F. App x 308, 309 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). While these cases are not binding, we find them persuasive. See United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
