USA v. Michael Sadowski, No. 10-20508 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-20508 Document: 00511450297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-20508 Conference Calendar April 19, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL SIMEON SADOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-616-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael Simeon Sadowski appeals as substantively unreasonable his 97month sentence for possession of child pornography; he does not contest that the sentence falls within the applicable guidelines range. We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This court has rejected Sadowski s argument that district courts err by giving credence to non-empirical Guidelines during sentencing. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20508 Document: 00511450297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 No. 10-20508 Cir. 2009) (holding that a sentence within the applicable guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness even if the Guideline applied is not empirically grounded). By arguing that the district court erred in its 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis, Sadowski invites this court to engage in impermissible substantive second-guessing of the sentencing court. United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 767 (5th Cir. 2008). He fails to overcome the presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 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.