Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11378/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Wayne Underwood
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11378

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DAVID WAYNE UNDERWOOD,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-78-25

Before BARKSDALE, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Wayne Underwood pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with 

intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B), and 846. Sentenced within the advisory sentencing range for the 

Sentencing Guidelines to 235 months’ imprisonment, Underwood asserts: his

sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11378 Document: 00513388104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2016
No. 14-11378

2

achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (sentencing factors), 

particularly the need to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public.

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the 

sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48–51 (2007). But,

because Underwood did not raise in district court the issue presented here, 

review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 

546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Underwood must show a forfeited 

plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion 

to correct the error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.

At sentencing, after considering Underwood’s mitigation contentions and 

the § 3553(a) factors, the court concluded a sentence at the low end of the 

Guidelines sentencing range was appropriate. Underwood has not shown the 

court: failed to give proper weight to any particular § 3553(a) factor; gave 

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or otherwise committed

a “clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors”. United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Along that line, the record does not 

support Underwood’s assertion that the court was influenced by his association 

with the Aryan Brotherhood. His contentions amount to an impermissible 

request to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In short, he 

fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-11378 Document: 00513388104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2016