Opinion
No. 06-0546-cr.
January 27, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge).
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Robert J. Boyle, New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: Stephan J. Baczynski, Assisted United States Attorney (Terrance P. Flynn, United States Attorney, on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SONIA SOTOMAYOR, REENARAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Thomas J. Adrignola appeals from a January 24, 2006 judgment of the District Court, convicting appellant, upon his guilty plea, of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and sentencing him principally to a term of 120 months' imprisonment. Specifically, Adrignola argues on appeal that the sentence of 120 months' imprisonment was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
We note that reasonableness review is meant to be the same review we undertake for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Upon a review of the record, we find no error — much less an abuse of discretion — in the District Court's sentence of 120 months' imprisonment.
First, contrary to defendant's assertion, we conclude that the District Court did not err in applying the departure provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3 and § 5K2.9 when it decided to increase defendant's sentence by forty-nine months over the top of the recommended imprisonment range. Second, even assuming arguendo that the District Court did err in applying the departure provisions, the District Court found, and we agree, that a more severe non-Guideline sentence was justified. There can be no doubt that the District Court thoroughly considered the purposes of sentencing in imposing the term that it did, and explained in great detail why an above-Guidelines sentence was necessary. Likewise, there can be no doubt that a term of 120 months' was substantively reasonable in light of the facts of this case.
Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court's sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Therefore, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.