# 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____________ Submitted: November 11, 2014 Filed: November 20, 2014 [Unpublished]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 duri ng the commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Th e Guidelines range called for a sentencefrom 272 to 319 months imprisonment. The district court 1 sentenced Blaylock to 188 months imprisonment on the armed bank r obbery count and 84 months imprisonment on the brandishing of a firearm count, withthe sentences running consecutively. The effective 272 month sentence falls at the bo ttom of the Guidelines range. Blaylock argued for a downward variance at senten cing and appeals his within-Guidelinesrange sentence on the grounds that it is substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and afte r 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 revi ew the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discre tion standard and presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is r easonable. United States v. Robinson , 759 F.3d 947, 950 (8th Cir. 2014). A sentence is substan tively unreasonable when a district court fails to consider a relevant factor unde r 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 c ourt 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 abus e 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 St ates District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
-2-substantively unreasonable when judge dec lined 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 substan tively unreasonable. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-