Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10648/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Nichols
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10648

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

HAROLD NICHOLS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-222

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold Nichols pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with intent to 

distribute, a mixture or substance containing 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. 

The district court sentenced Nichols to 260 months’ imprisonment, which is

below the advisory-Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range of 360 to 480 

months, and four years’ supervised release, which is within the advisory-

* 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

March 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10648 Document: 00512970508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-10648

Guidelines range. Nichols asserts his imprisonment and supervised release 

term are: procedurally unreasonable because the court did not adequately 

articulate its reasons for the sentence; and substantively unreasonable 

because the reasons do not support the sentence. 

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, 51 (2007). In that 

respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines 

is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Regarding claimed procedural unreasonableness, Nichols did not object 

in district court to the adequacy of the court’s reasons for sentencing. 

Therefore, review of that issue is only for plain error. E.g., Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 

(5th Cir. 1995). Under that standard, Nichols must show a forfeited plain 

(clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. 

at 135. If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do 

so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the 

proceedings. Id.

Nichols’ assertions regarding claimed procedural and substantive 

unreasonableness are conclusional, at best; his brief does not provide any 

detailed discussion or legal analysis of his claims or citations of either the 

record or relevant legal authorities. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (requiring 

briefs to include, inter alia, record and legal citations). An issue must be 

briefed to be preserved. E.g., United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 

2

Case: 14-10648 Document: 00512970508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-10648

(5th Cir. 2010) (“It is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal 

theory.”). Further, Nichols’ counseled brief is not entitled to liberal 

construction. E.g., Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Nichols has, therefore, abandoned any challenge to the procedural or 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence. E.g., Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446

(citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-10648 Document: 00512970508 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2015