Case ID: f-appx_301/html/0323-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danny Leon LYNCH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10107
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 2, 2008.
    Kim L. McCabe, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Laura S. Harper, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Danny Leon Lynch, Jr., pleaded guilty to five counts of bank robbery and was sentenced as a career offender to concurrent 160-month terms of imprisonment. Lynch does not dispute the procedural correctness of his sentence, but he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the offenses in his criminal record overstate the violence of his actual conduct and the sentencing court failed to consider his abuse as a child; his history of mental problems, attempted suicide, and substance abuse. Lynch contends that his sentence is excessive because it does not address his need for psychological treatment rather than punishment.

The sentencing court cited Lynch’s recidivism, his repeated use of threats of violence, the danger posed by his commission of violent crimes while under the influence of drugs, and his failure to accept or seek help with his problems. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court sentenced Lynch at the mid-range of correctly calculated Sentencing Guidelines. The sentence is procedurally reasonable and we accord it a presumption of substantive reasonableness. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.