Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30204/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30204-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scottron Cordell Medlock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30204

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SCOTTRON CORDELL MEDLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:14-CR-113-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scottron Cordell Medlock appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine. The district court 

sentenced Medlock to 188 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to a 

10-year state sentence, and four years of supervised release. Medlock contends 

that the district court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence is substantively 

 

* 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

October 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30204 Document: 00513236056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2015
No. 15-30204

2

unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors.

The consecutive nature of Medlock’s sentence is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 

473 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court was aware of the mitigating 

circumstances offered by Medlock and explicitly took some of them into account 

in selecting the sentence. However, in imposing a consecutive sentence, the 

district court gave more weight to Medlock’s personal and criminal history and 

characteristics. Medlock’s “belief that the mitigating factors presented for the 

court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to 

disturb this presumption.” United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th 

Cir. 2012). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30204 Document: 00513236056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2015