Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60507/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodregus K. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60507

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODREGUS K. BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:09-CR-93-1 

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodregus K. Brown appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following 

the revocation of his supervised release, which was in excess of the advisory 

policy range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) of four to ten months. Brown 

challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of that sentence. 

When sentencing Brown, the district court indicated that it had reviewed 

§ 7B1.4(a) and the appropriate § 3553(a) factors, particularly Brown’s history 

* 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 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60507 Document: 00515301165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 19-60507

2

and characteristics and the court’s responsibility to adequately deter criminal 

conduct. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B). The court noted that Brown had committed 

a new felony while on supervised release, that he had been arrested on three 

additional occasions during the term of supervision, and that he placed the 

community at significant risk by leading law enforcement officers on a highspeed chase in excess of 120 miles per hour. 

Brown argues that the reasons given by the district court in support of 

the chosen sentence were inadequate and, therefore, that the sentence is 

procedurally unreasonable. This procedural argument, raised for the first time 

on appeal, is reviewed for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Brown has not shown that the alleged procedural error was clear or obvious or 

that it affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

256, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2009). His procedural claim therefore does not survive 

plain error review. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

Brown also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his revocation 

sentence, arguing that the sentence represents a clear error of judgment in

balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. His objection in the

district court was sufficient to preserve review under the plainly unreasonable 

standard. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 326. A preserved objection to a sentence’s 

substantive reasonableness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, examining 

the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 332.

Brown’s revocation sentence, although in excess of the advisory policy 

range, was within the statutory maximum term of imprisonment allowed for 

the revocation sentence and is thus the type of sentence we routinely uphold. 

See Warren, 720 F.3d at 328; Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265. Moreover, Brown has 

failed to point specifically to a clear error by the district court in balancing the 

Case: 19-60507 Document: 00515301165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020
No. 19-60507

3

sentencing factors; his contention that a sentence within the advisory policy 

range was sufficient to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a) is nothing more 

than a disagreement with the district court’s choice of sentence, coupled with 

a request that we reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we may not do. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 

435 (5th Cir. 2013). He therefore has not shown that his sentence was an abuse 

of discretion. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-60507 Document: 00515301165 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2020