IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50569

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LYNDELL BRADY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-17-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Lyndell Brady appeals the 37-month withinguidelines sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction for maintaining a 

drug premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) & (b), arguing that it is 

substantively unreasonable. He concedes that our review is under the plain 

error standard of review, but he challenges our caselaw regarding the standard 

of review in order to preserve the issue for further review. However, Brady’s 

 

* 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

April 18, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50569 Document: 00514921422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2019
No. 18-50569

2

reasonableness argument fails even under the abuse of discretion standard of 

review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007); United States v. 

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated 

guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The presumption of 

reasonableness “is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not 

account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant 

weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of 

judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 

173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

Here, the district court heard and considered Brady’s arguments for a 

below-guidelines sentence based on his age and reduced risk of recidivism and 

weighed them against his failure to appreciate the gravity of his offense, the 

need to deter others from committing the same or similar crimes, and Brady’s 

knowledge of and experience with the criminal justice system. Having weighed 

all of those factors, the district court concluded that a sentence at the bottom 

of the guidelines range was just and reasonable.

Effectively, if not explicitly, Brady asserts that the district court should 

have given dispositive weight to his age and low risk of recidivism. That 

argument is unavailing, however, as it is contrary to this court’s precedent and 

reflects a mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 

2016); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Because Brady fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded 

within-guidelines sentences, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

See Rodriguez, 523 F.3d at 525-26.

 Case: 18-50569 Document: 00514921422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2019