# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60631 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Tomango Ali Barton, Jr.,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 7

- 3

**__________ ____________________**  Before **Jones** , **Graves** , and **Wilson** , Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  ***** Tomango Ali Barton, Jr. , appeals the within

- guidelines sentence imposed after the revocation of his supervised release. Barton contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence that was greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 355 3 (a)

. He challenges the district court’s balancing of the sentencing

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60631 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024No. 23

- 60631

2 factors, arguing that the court gave too much weight to his offense level and not enough weight to his personal circumstances

. A preserved challenge to a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release generally is reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). The plainly unreasonable standard is a two

- step process. Id. First, we consider whether the district court committed any significant procedural error. Id. If there is no procedural error, we c onsider the substantiv e reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 326, 332. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an ir relevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. Even if we conclude that the revocation sentence is unreasonable, we may vacate onl y if “ the error was obvious under existing law .” Id. at 326 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The record reflects that t he district court properly considered the § 3553 (a) factors, as well as Barton’s reasons for not attending the drug

tre atment appointments and remaining unemployed. The court noted Barton’s admission that he continued to smoke marijuana despite knowing that it was a violation of his release and that he would be tested. The court also noted that this was Barton’s second r evocation and that he had four substance abuse violations in less than a year. Barton’s argument r eflects h is disagreement with the propriety of h is sentence and the district court’s weighing of the sentencing factors , and he has not shown that his revoca tion sentence is plainly unreasonable. See id. at 332

. T he judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-60631 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2024