Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50555/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50555-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Phillip Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50555

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

JOHN PHILLIP MARTIN,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-71-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Phillip Martin pled guilty to three counts of mail fraud, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The district court sentenced him to 40 months of

imprisonment, which was within the Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months. On

appeal, Martin argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is

greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends

that the district court inordinately punished him for the seriousness of his crime,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 22, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-50555 Document: 00511032190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
No. 09-50555

2

and did not account for either his personal history and characteristics or the

circumstances surrounding the offense. 

The district court made an individualized sentencing decision based on the

facts of the case in light of the factors set out in Section 3553(a). See Gall v.

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The district court’s conclusion that a

sentence within the Guidelines is appropriate is entitled to deference, and we

presume that it is reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531

F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).

The district court was in a superior position to find facts and assess their import

under Section 3553(a). We see no reason to disturb that court’s discretionary

decision to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-50555 Document: 00511032190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2010