United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40481

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Timothy Earl Brown, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CR-41-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Timothy Earl Brown was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court imposed an upward variance and 

sentenced Brown to 60 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40481 Document: 00516117250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
No. 20-40481

2

supervised release for each count to run concurrently. Brown now appeals 

his sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness.

First, Brown argues that the district court procedurally erred when it 

imposed a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for 

obstruction of justice. At sentencing, the district court found that Brown 

repeatedly told his mother to let court or law enforcement authorities know 

that she had hidden the firearms in the woods and that the firearms did not 

belong to him. The district court reasonably inferred that Brown was 

attempting to suborn perjury from his mother, as he told his mother to appeal

to an authority figure to establish a defense against his charges. See § 3C1.1; 

United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 2014). The

finding of obstruction is particularly plausible in light of Brown’s suggestion

to his mother that his charges would then be dropped, he would receive a 

mental health evaluation and treatment, and he would be able to see and raise 

his son. See United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Accordingly, Brown has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in 

applying the § 3C1.1 enhancement. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 

517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 

204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008).

Next, Brown argues that the district court abused its discretion when 

it imposed an upward variance. The district court stated that it considered 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the record reflects the same. The record 

also does not show that the district court failed to account for a factor that 

should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an 

irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in 

balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708

(5th Cir. 2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering 

Brown’s prior unadjudicated arrests, which were supported by sufficient 

evidence to corroborate their reliability, and there is no indication that it 

Case: 20-40481 Document: 00516117250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
No. 20-40481

3

considered Brown’s bare arrest record. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 

226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273, 277-78 

(5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 

2013). Moreover, the record reveals that the district court did not base the 

sentence solely on Brown’s arrests, nor did it give significant weight to 

Brown’s arrest record. Ultimately, Brown’s argument amounts to no more 

than a request for this court to reweigh the statutory sentencing factors, 

which we will not do. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th 

Cir. 2017). Under the totality of circumstances, including the significant 

deference that is given to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) 

factors, the extent of the variance, and the district court’s reasons for its 

sentencing decision, the sentence was reasonable and was not an abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 2013); 

Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166; United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 

2015). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40481 Document: 00516117250 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/03/2021