NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 23

- 1532

_______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. ERIC TRIPLETT,

Appellant

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2

- 22

- cr
- 0 0 227

- 001) District Judge: Honorable W. Scott Hardy

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 8, 2024 Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Filed : March 26, 2024 )

_______________ OPINION *

_______________ JORDAN , Circuit Judge

. Eric Triplett wa s sentenced to twenty

- four month s’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent.2

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)( 2 )

. He now appeal s his sentence, arguing
that it is substantively unreasonable. For the rea sons that follow, we will affirm.
I. B ACKGROUND I n May of 2022, at approximately 4:00 a.m., police found a car that appeared to
have crashed into a hillside. From a distance, the o fficers observed a man in the driver’s
seat “with his head slouched backwards

. ” ( Supp. App. at 6. ) When the y went to the car
and performed a wellness check , they found Triplett unconscious in the driver’s seat with the ignition on. They also smelled alcohol on his breath. After numerous attempts to
wake him , Triplett awoke and appeared confused and disoriented; he was then asked to
exit the car. As he got out of the car , the officers found a loaded 9mm pistol , which turned out to be stolen, on the floorboard near his feet

. Triplett was charged with one count of possession of ammunition and a firearm by
a convicted felon. 1 He pled guilty. The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report ( “ PSR ” ) and calculated a total offense level of thirteen and a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“ guidelines ”) range of 18

– 24 months ’ imprisonment

. Triplett did

not raise any objections to the PSR

. Instead, Triplett moved for a downward variance, requesting a sentence of twelve
months and one day imprisonment; he did not ask for time

- served credit

. At sentencing,
the District Court denied his motion and proceeded to weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

1 Triplett had two prior weapons convictions

– one state and one federal

– and a history of assaultive behavior and physical violence towards women.3

factors

. 2 The C ourt stated that “the instant offense [] [was] extremely serious” because it was not Triplett’s “first brush with the law involving firearms [,] ” but was “the third time that [Triplett had] been down this road[.]” ( App. at 105

– 06

. ) The C ourt highlighted that , despite his strong family ties and steady employment history , Triplett “ once again illegally possess ed a firearm [,] strongly suggest[ing] that the sentences he[] received thus far ... did not sufficiently deter him [

. ] ” ( App. at 105. )
While not ing that Triplett was “ remorseful” and had made “laudable” and “important” “contributions to [his] family [,] ” including having “steady employment” ( App. at 10 6

- 07 ) , the Court ultimately decided that Triplett’s criminal history

– “a dangerous mix of guns and assaultive behavior”

– gave rise to “significant concerns about whether the more lenient sentence would be an appropriate deterrent” and would adequately protect the public. ( App. at 106

– 07. ) “[A]fter considering all of th[e] Section 3553(a) factors,” the District C ourt imposed a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment and

2 The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed

– (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promo te respect for the law , and to provide just punishment ... ; (B) to afford adequate deterrence ... ; (C) to protect the public ... ; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment

... ; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4)

... the sentencing range ... ; (5) any pertinent policy statement

... ; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar con duct; and (7) the need to provide restitution[.]4

three years ’ supervised release. ( App. at 1

– 5, 10 7

– 08. ) Triplett has timely appealed. [App. at 9.]
II. D ISCUSSION 3
On appeal, Triplett contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
because the District Court “ ignored ” 4 or “ slighted relevant [ mitigating ] factors

. ” ( Opening Br. at 14.) When a sentence is challenged for substantive reasonableness, “ we will affirm it unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed th e same
sentence

... for the reasons

... provided. ” United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc)

. Sentences within the guidelines range

– as Triplett’s is

– may be presumed reasonable. United States v. Handerhan , 739 F.3d 114, 124 ( 3d Cir . 2014). As the party challenging the sentence, Triplett bears the burden of proving that his sentence
is substantively unreasonable. Tomko , 562 F.3d at 5 67

. Triplett recognizes that “[t]he touchstone of ‘reasonableness ’ is whether the record
as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the [§ 3553(a) factors ]

. ” (Opening Br. at 17 (quoting Tomko , 562 F.3d at 5 75 (first alteration in original) )) (emphasis added )

. He present s social science evidence to support his position that his

3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91. W e review the substantive reasonableness of the District Court’s se ntence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Tomko , 562 F.3d 558 , 567 ( 3d Cir. 200 9 ) (en banc)

.

4 T hough Triplett uses “ignored” in his opening brief, he explicitly states that “this cour t should not opine on the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, as that issue is not before this court.” (Reply Br. at 4 n.4. ) Therefore, we review solely for substantive reasonableness.5

mitigating factors

– strong familial ties and steady employment history

– generally lower
one’s risk of recidivism and so warrant ed a shorter sentence in his case

. He argues that
the Dis trict Court had “tunnel vision” fix at ed on deterrence and that his mitigating factors
addressed any recidivism concerns. (Opening Br. at 15 , 27 .)
T he District Court has discretion “to accord less weight to mitigat[ing ] factors” advanced by the defendant without rendering the sentence unreasonable. United States v. Young , 634 F.3d 233, 243 (3d Cir. 2011). Thus, a sentence is not unreasonable if the
district court “ fail[ed] to give mitigating factors the weight a defen dant contends they deserve[.]” United States v. Bungar , 478 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir. 2007)

. Here, the District
Court considered Triplett’s mitigating factors and weighed them against the other factors outlined in § 3553(a). It acknowledged that Triplett’s mitigating factors were “ out of the main from a lot of [other] defendants [

. ] ” (App. at 106). And t he Court commended Triplett’s work history and his efforts to care for his mother and children. I t noted , however, that the goal of the sentence was to ensure that Triplett would “be able to stop making this [repeated] mistake[,]” because he was a danger to his community , his family,
and particularly his children. (App. at 116.) While strong familial ties and steady employment history ma y generally reduce one’s risk of recidivism, the District Court
found that any reduction was outweighed by other considerations

. It was within its
discretion to do so

. Bungar , 478 F.3d at 546.
The record demonstrates that the District Court meaningfull y considered Triplett’s mitigating factors and weighed them against the other § 3553(a) factors in his case and6

determined that a within

- guidelines sentence was appropriate. That decision was not substantively un reasonable

. III. C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment

.