Case ID: f-appx_490/html/0641-01.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. Christopher Wayne GABLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-60085
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2012.
    Robert Henry Norman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kenneth Harold Coghlan, Rayburn Coghlan Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Wayne Gable appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for three counts of bank robbery. He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and too severe, given that he cooperated and assisted law enforcement officers, he was not armed, and he took a small amount of money totaling just over $2000 from all three banks. Because Gable did not object to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir .2007).

The district court did not err in imposing the 78-month within-guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United, States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Gable’s within-guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). The district court considered Gable’s arguments for a lesser sentence, including his mental health and drug addiction problems, as well as the Presen-tence Report, the applicable guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The Presentence Report noted that Gable was unarmed, that he cooperated with the Government, and that he took a relatively small amount of money. Gable has not shown that the district court made a clear error of judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. His arguments constitute a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of those factors; he is essentially asking this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which it may not do. See id.; United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). Therefore, Gable has not shown that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, in imposing the 78-month within-guidelines sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186; Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66.

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.