United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1565

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aaron Maurice Blaylock, also known as Stephan Blaylock, also known as Bobbie Blaylock

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado

____________

 Submitted: November 11, 2014

Filed: November 20, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Blaylock pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting armed bank

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and one count of aiding and

abetting the brandishing of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The Guidelines range called for a sentence
from 272 to 319 months imprisonment. The district court1

 sentenced Blaylock to 188

months imprisonment on the armed bank robbery count and 84 months imprisonment

on the brandishing of a firearm count, with the sentences running consecutively. The

effective 272 month sentence falls at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Blaylock

argued for a downward variance at sentencing and appeals his within-Guidelinesrange sentence on the grounds that it is substantively unreasonable. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and after careful review, this court affirms.

Blaylock contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court did not properly weigh mitigating factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), including Blaylock’s family history, lack of meaningful adult guidance as

a child, and HIV-positive status. We review the substantive reasonableness of a

sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and presume that a sentence

within the Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Robinson, 759 F.3d 947,

950 (8th Cir. 2014). A sentence is substantively unreasonable when a district court

fails to consider a relevant factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), gives significant weight

to an improper factor, or commits an error in weighing the section 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008).

Upon careful review, we conclude that Blaylock’s sentence was not

substantively unreasonable. The district court weighed Blaylock’s mitigating factors,

giving consideration to his upbringing and family history. Finding Blaylock’s

criminal history and the current offense carried greater weight than the mitigating

factors, the district court declined to grant a downward variance in Blaylock’s

sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant a downward

variance on the basis of Blaylock’s lack of guidance as a child. See United States v.

Godinez, 474 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (upholding a sentence as not

1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

-2-
substantively unreasonable when judge declined to issue downward variance because

of defendant’s lack of guidance as a youth). Further, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in declining to issue a downward variance based on Blaylock’s HIVpositive status. See United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir. 2008)

(finding no error in district court’s decision not to grant a downward variance on the

basis of the defendant’s physical impairments). Nothing in the record indicates

Blaylock’s HIV-positive status rises to the level of physical impairment that would

require a downward variance.

Blaylock’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The judgment is

affirmed.

______________________________

-3-