IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60644

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:15-CR-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Green pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a fugitive 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2) and was sentenced to 60 months of 

imprisonment, to run consecutively to his term of imprisonment on a state 

conviction, and two years of supervised release. He challenges his sentence of 

60 months of imprisonment, imposed to run consecutively to his undischarged 

state sentence for aggravated assault. Green contends the district court should 

 

* 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

May 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60644 Document: 00513500137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
No. 15-60644

2

have applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), as he requested at sentencing, and run his 

federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence. He argues that the 

district court committed procedural error by failing to consider the appropriate 

guidelines range and whether § 5G1.3(b)(2) applied.

Although Green objected to the district court’s failure to apply 

§ 5G1.3(b)(2) to make his sentence concurrent, he did not specifically argue in 

the district court, as he does now, that the district court failed to consider 

whether that Guideline applied in order to determine the guideline sentence. 

Thus, we review his claim of procedural unreasonableness for plain error. See

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

A district court retains the discretion to impose a consecutive sentence 

as a departure or variance even when § 5G1.3(b) applies. United States v. Bell, 

46 F.3d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Rangel, 319 F.3d 710, 713 

(5th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Green’s assertion, there is no indication that the 

district court failed to consider his argument for a concurrent sentence. 

Green’s attorney argued that § 5G1.3(b) applied, and the district court 

expressed its opinion that the Guideline did not constrain the court’s ability to 

vary from the Guidelines. The district court rejected Green’s request to impose 

a concurrent sentence and imposed a 60-month consecutive sentence as a 

variance. Green has not shown that the district court plainly erred by failing 

to consider § 5G1.3(b) or the appropriate guidelines range.

Green argues that the district court’s sentence was greater than 

necessary to satisfy the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the 

sentence was substantively unreasonable based on the variance upward to 60 

months and because it was imposed to run consecutively.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, whether inside 

or outside of the guidelines range and including its nature as consecutive, for 

 Case: 15-60644 Document: 00513500137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
No. 15-60644

3

an abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 807-08 (5th 

Cir. 2008); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007); United States v. 

Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474-75 (5th Cir. 2006). The reasonableness inquiry is 

guided by the factors in § 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 

(5th Cir. 2005). If the district court elects to impose a non-guideline sentence, 

it should carefully articulate the reasons for concluding that the sentence 

selected is appropriate. Id.

The district court clearly stated its intention to impose a sentence above 

the advisory guideline range based on the factors listed in § 3553(a). The 

district court noted Green’s persistent pattern of firearm-related violent crimes 

and the fact that he had no verifiable history of gainful employment and 

concluded that a sentence greater than the guidelines range was appropriate 

to protect the public and to deter Green from future crimes. Green’s argument

is essentially a disagreement with the district court’s assessment of what 

constitutes a reasonable sentence and amounts to a request for this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors. That this court “might reasonably have concluded 

that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of 

the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Green has failed to show that his 

sentence is unreasonable in light of the court’s consideration of the sentencing 

factors and its detailed explanation of reasons for imposing the 60-month 

sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence. The judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60644 Document: 00513500137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/10/2016