United States of America v. Philip M. Sebolt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
April 8, 2009
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 04‐2588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
PHILIP M. SEBOLT,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
No. 02 CR 648
Ronald A. Guzman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Philip Sebolt appealed his conviction and sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment for various
federal crimes involving child pornography. We affirmed his conviction, but ordered a limited
remand pursuant to United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), to determine whether
the district court would have imposed the same sentence had he known that the federal
Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. In an order dated December 22,
2008, Judge Ronald A. Guzman, replied that he would have, citing the sentencing goals
enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We now must determine whether the sentence imposed was
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04‐2588 Page 2
reasonable. United States v. Hanhardt, No. 02‐2253, 2006 WL 1004883, at *1 (7th Cir. Apr. 13,
2006); see Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.
In his position statement, Sebolt asserts, without explanation, that (1) his sentence is
unreasonable in light of the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and (2) Judge Guzman failed to
comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) in imposing his sentences consecutively.
Sebolt’s sentence fell within the applicable Guidelines range, and is therefore presumed
reasonable. See United States v. Mykutiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). As we previously
noted, at Sebolt’s initial sentencing “[t]he judge thoroughly discussed his reasons to ensure that
the sentencing range reflected the seriousness of Sebolt’s conduct and the sheer volume of
pornography he possessed.” United States v. Sebolt, 460 F.3d 910, 919 (7th Cir. 2006). In its
December 22 order, the judge referenced that discussion, noting that he had already fully
considered the different factors impacting the § 3553 sentencing goals. With that in mind, the
district judge found no basis for imposing a different sentence. Since Sebolt has offered nothing
to overcome that finding, he has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence is reasonable.
See Mykutiuk, 415 F.3d at 608.
As to Sebolt’s second argument, § 3584(b) requires that the district judge consider the factors
set forth in § 3553 in determining whether to impose concurrent or consecutive terms. Judge
Guzman made clear that he had considered those factors, including just punishment, adequate
deterrence, protecting the public, and providing remedial treatment and training. Sebolt’s
consecutive sentences therefore did not violate § 3584(b).
We AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --