United States Court of Appeals

for 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: 06/13/2023
No. 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 effectuate the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). 

This court lacks 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 reviews 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.” United 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 

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).

At sentencing, the district court considered and rejected Jones’s 

arguments for a below-guidelines 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: 06/13/2023
No. 22-10599

3

the sentence imposed is insufficient to rebut the presumption 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