USA v. Matthew McKee, No. 12-30873 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-30873 Document: 00512239412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30873 Summary Calendar May 13, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MATTHEW MCKEE, also known as Fantom, also known as Fantomg, also known as B.J. Hunnicutt, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CR-62-8 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Matthew McKee pleaded guilty to a single count of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, and he was sentenced in the middle of the guidelines range (240 to 293 months) to a 265-month term of imprisonment and to a period of supervised release of life. In this appeal, McKee contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it exceeded the statutory minimum * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30873 Document: 00512239412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 No. 12-30873 sentence by 25 months and because the Sentencing Guidelines did not account sufficiently for his minimal criminal history. Because this question was not preserved in the district court, this court s review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009); see also United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, an appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. On the record before us, McKee has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that applies to within-guidelines sentences. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2006). No error has been shown, plain or otherwise. The judgment is 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.
