USA v. Paul Grimm, No. 15-41494 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-41494 Document: 00513669463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-41494 Summary Calendar FILED September 8, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PAUL FRANCIS GRIMM, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CR-10-1 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paul Francis Grimm was convicted of one count of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and he received an above guidelines sentence of 183 months in prison and a ten-year term of supervised release. Now, Grimm argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court erred when balancing 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-41494 Document: 00513669463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 No. 15-41494 the relevant sentencing factors by giving too much weight to the need for the sentence imposed to provide deterrence and rejecting his assertions of remorse. Because Grimm did not object to his sentence, his arguments are reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish reversible plain error, an appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). This showing has not been made. If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that this court evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. The district court’s extensive remarks show that it gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and committed no error when balancing them. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. Grimm’s challenge to the district court’s credibility finding vis-à-vis his attestations of remorse is unavailing. United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. 2 See
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.
