IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50998

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

G. B. BUTCH COLEMAN, JR.,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-690-6

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

G.B. Butch Coleman, Jr., has appealed his sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Coleman was

convicted by a jury and sentenced to a 168-month term of imprisonment, with

credit for time served in custody, and a five-year term of supervised release. He

argues that his sentence, which is at the mid-range of the applicable guidelines

range, is substantively unreasonable. He does not suggest that the district court

committed a procedural error in calculating the applicable guidelines range, but

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2012
No. 11-50998

he contends that his sentence is unreasonable under Kimbrough v. United

States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-10 (2007), because the drug-trafficking guidelines lack

an empirical basis and the assignment of offense levels based on drug quantities

causes drug couriers such as himself to receive unreasonably high sentences. He

urges that a below-guidelines sentence would be appropriate because he presents

little risk of recidivism and he has a stable work record, no prior criminal

convictions, and a history of religious and charitable activities.

Generally, we review criminal sentences for reasonableness under an

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If,

however, a defendant failed to object to an error at sentencing, we will review

the issue for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

A sentence that falls within a defendant’s properly calculated guidelines range

is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v.

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Coleman raised his appellate

arguments for a below-guidelines sentence during the sentencing hearing, but

he did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence. We need not resolve

whether plain error review applies because Coleman’s sentence may be affirmed

under either standard. Compare United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92

(5th Cir. 2007) (holding that a defendant’s failure to object to the reasonableness

of his sentence limits this court’s review to plain error), with United States v.

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for abuse-ofdiscretion a district court’s denial of a below-guidelines sentence in a case where

the defendant presented detailed assertions and testimony in support of the

variance but did not specifically object to the reasonableness of his sentence). 

Kimbrough does not require either district courts or appellate courts to

conduct “a piece-by-piece analysis of the empirical grounding behind each part

of the sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th

Cir. 2009). A presumption of reasonableness applies to a within-guidelines

2

Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2012
No. 11-50998

sentence regardless of whether it is supported by empirical data. United States

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The district court considered Coleman’s sentencing arguments and

evidence and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before determining that a withinGuideline sentence was appropriate. Coleman has not shown that the district

court considered any irrelevant or improper factors, that it made an error in

judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, or that it did not account for a factor

that should receive significant weight. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173,

186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

a sentence within the advisory guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-50998 Document: 00511931753 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2012