United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10739

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

James Earl Green, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CR-70-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Earl Green, Jr., was convicted of attempted bank robbery. 

During sentencing, the district court varied upward from the United States 

Sentencing Guideline range and sentenced Green to 180 months 

imprisonment. Green filed a timely notice of appeal.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10739 Document: 00516670307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2023
No. 22-10739

2 

Green contests the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. This 

court reviews “an appellant’s claim that [a] sentence is unreasonable for 

abuse of discretion. This review is highly deferential, because the sentencing 

court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import under the 

§ 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. 

Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). 

The district court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater 

than necessary, to accomplish the goals of sentencing, including to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just 

punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101 (2007) (internal quotations 

omitted) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) also requires the 

district court to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and 

the history and characteristics of the defendant.” “A non-Guideline 

sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where 

it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or 

(3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” 

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Green contends the sentence was unreasonable because the district 

court failed to consider his age at the time he committed earlier, unscored 

offenses; the gap between his last offense and the instant crime; and his 

current age. The district court thoroughly explained why the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors supported Green’s sentences, including his significant and 

lengthy criminal history, the failure of prior sentences to deter him from 

criminal conduct, and the violent circumstances of the instant attempted 

bank robbery. Thus, Green’s “claim amounts to a request that we reweigh 

Case: 22-10739 Document: 00516670307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2023
No. 22-10739

3

the sentencing factors and substitute our judgment for that of the district 

court, which we will not do.” United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 

407, 412 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted). His challenge to the 

degree of the variance is likewise unavailing. See United States v. Brantley, 

537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10739 Document: 00516670307 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2023