Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10613/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10613-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gregory Wind
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10613

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORY WIND,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-302-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Wind appeals the 60-month, above-guidelines range sentence he 

received upon pleading guilty to using a false document. Wind contends that 

(1) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed 

to adequately explain its reasons for departing upward and failed to consider 

his arguments for a downward departure, and (2) his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. We affirm.

* 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 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10613 Document: 00515349705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
No. 19-10613

2

Because Wind “did not object to the district court’s failure to explain the 

sentence . . . , plain error review applies.” United States v. Garcia-Bahena, 402 

F. App'x 926, 927 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d. at 

361 (“When a defendant fails to raise a procedural objection below, appellate 

review is for plain error only.”). The court recited in detail Wind’s extensive 

criminal history, which includes multiple fraud and theft convictions; adopted 

the unobjected-to presentence report, which noted that Wind’s undercounted 

criminal history might support a nonguidelines sentence; listened to defense 

counsel’s and Wind’s arguments for a downward departure; and explained at 

length why a 60-month sentence adequately addressed the relevant 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. By imposing a sentence above the guidelines range, the court 

implicitly found Wind’s arguments for leniency unpersuasive. See Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007). We are satisfied that the district court

considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its 

sentencing authority. See id. at 356. And the record “makes clear both the 

reasons for the sentence and their adequacy as a matter of law.” United States 

v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 659 (5th Cir. 2008).

Next, we review Wind’s claim that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 

475 (5th Cir. 2010). Wind’s 60-month sentence is substantively reasonable. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). Contrary to Wind’s 

assertion, the district court took his arguments for a downward departure into 

account but simply found them unavailing. That Wind disagrees with the 

court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is not grounds for vacating his aboveguidelines sentence. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 

2016).

Case: 19-10613 Document: 00515349705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
No. 19-10613

3

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10613 Document: 00515349705 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2020