Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60371/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodrecas Tims
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60371

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODRECAS TIMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CR-240-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodrecas Tims appeals his above-guidelines sentence of 108 months of 

imprisonment for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Tims argues that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the statutory sentencing factors do not justify the 

upward variance imposed. Tims contends that the nature and circumstances 

of his offense were not unusual or egregious. He also emphasizes that he 

* 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 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60371 Document: 00515299514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
No. 19-60371

2

sustained his prior convictions many years ago when he was a minor and 

argues that the district court should not have relied upon allegations of 

criminal conduct in pending state cases. 

Even to the extent that Tims has not preserved every specific argument 

underlying his reasonableness challenge, we need not decide the appropriate 

standard of review because Tims’s arguments are unavailing under the more 

lenient abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Tims has 

not shown that the district court gave improper weight to any factor or 

committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the pertinent sentencing 

factors. United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). The district 

court was entitled to place appropriate weight on his criminal conduct. See, 

e.g., United States v. Pillault, 783 F.3d 282, 289-90 (5th Cir. 2015). The district 

court did not abuse its discretion. See id.; Diehl, 775 F.3d at 724.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-60371 Document: 00515299514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020