United States v. Hanks

Case: 25-40101 Document: 92-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit _____________ FILED No. 25-40101 March 10, 2026 consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce No. 25-40159 Clerk _____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christian Allen Hanks, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. 7:23-CR-746-1, 7:24-CR-1257-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Christian Allen Hanks appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 360 months of imprisonment for production of child pornography and his below- guidelines sentence of 400 months of imprisonment, a downward departure,

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-40101 Document: 92-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2026 for coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. He argues that his sentences are substantively unreasonable.

Insofar as the Government challenges this court’s jurisdiction to consider the extent of the district court’s downward departure, this court can review Hanks’s claim of substantive unreasonableness. See United States v. Broussard, 882 F.3d 104, 112-13 (5th Cir. 2018). To the extent that Hanks argues that his sentences are substantively unreasonable, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court considered and rejected Hanks’s arguments for lesser sentences, and he has not shown that the sentences fail to account for a factor that should receive significant weight, give significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or “represent[] a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his within and below-guidelines sentences. See id; see also United States v. Gozes-Wagner, 977 F.3d 323, 343 (5th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.