# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 10599 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Ronald Eugene Jones,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21

- CR

- 72 -1

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Ronald Eugene Jones pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to a 151

- month term of imprisonment and a three

- year term of supervised release

. Jones argues on appeal that the district court erred in not departing

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 13, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10599 Document: 00516785146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023No. 22

- 10599

2 downward under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 or granting a variance based on his physical impairments and numerous medical conditions and that his sentence is greater than necessary to eff ectuate the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a ).
This court lack s jurisdiction to consider whether the district court erred in denying Jones a downward departure based on his physical impairments. See United States v. Fillmore , 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2018). We may review the denial of a downward departure only if the district court erroneously believed it lacked the authority to depart. Id. Jones has not alleged , and the record does not indicate , that the district court believed it lacked that authority. We therefore do not have jurisdiction to review this issue. We do have jurisdiction to consider whether Jones’s sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a). This court rev iews preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “We presume sentences within or below the calculated guidelines range are reasonable.” Un ited States v. Simpson , 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015)

. 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 irrelev ant 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). At sentencing, the district court considered and rejected Jones’s arguments for a below

- guideli nes sentence. Jones has presented nothing to indicate that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186

. His disagreement with the propriety of Case: 22-10599 Document: 00516785146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2023No. 22

- 10599

3 the sentence imposed is insufficient to rebut the p resumption of reasonableness. See Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186

. Based on the foregoing, we **DISMISS** Jones’s appeal, in part, for lack of jurisdiction and **AFFIRM** the district court’s judgment in all other respects

**.** Case: 22-10599 Document: 00516785146 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2023