Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10530/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Asher Agee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10530

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DAVID ASHER AGEE,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-478-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Asher Agee pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and was sentenced to 188 months’ 

imprisonment. He challenges his sentence, which was within his advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range (151-188 months), as substantively 

unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. 

* 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

January 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10530 Document: 00512916028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2015
No. 14-10530

§ 3553(a), given his history of mental-health issues and suicide attempts, and 

his attempts to obtain treatment for his psychological problems. 

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). 

Agee does not claim procedural error, only that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, because Agee objected in district 

court to the reasonableness of his sentence, our review is for an abuse of 

discretion, as discussed above. 

Because Agee’s sentence was within the Guidelines-sentencing range, it 

is presumed to be reasonable. E.g., United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 

(5th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). His general disagreement with the propriety 

of his sentence and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors is insufficient to rebut that presumption. E.g., United States v. Cooks, 

589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 

554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10530 Document: 00512916028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2015