### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30197 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHAHEED CLAIBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:11-CR-74-2

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Shaheed Claib orne pleaded guilty of U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 10 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30197 Document: 00512014939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2012No. 12-30197

attemp ti ng to possess contraband while in prison. He challenges his sentence of one year and one day, which was at the low end of the guideline range. Claiborne disputes the district court’s decision to increase his offense level by two levels for his role in the offens e . Citing application note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, Claiborne contends that his conduct did not meet the c rit e ri a u s e d to determine whether a defendant played an organizing role. He contends that he and his codefendant shared equal responsibility in the criminal activity. We review for clear error a factual finding regarding a defendant’s role in the offense. United States v. Delgado , 672 F.3d 320, 344 (5th Cir. 2012), petition for cert. filed (May 22, 2012) (No. 11-10492). A two-level increase in the offense level is warranted “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, le a d e r , m anager, or supervisor in” certain criminal activities. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The application note relied on by Claiborne—application note 4—is irrelevant, because it identifies factors that distinguish a defendant who has a leadership or organizational r o l e in an offense from one who is merely a manager or supervisor for purposes of determining whether a four- or three-level a d j u s t m e nt is warranted. See§ 3B1.1, comment (n.4). Claiborne received only a two-level increase under § 3B1.1(c), which makes no distinction among leaders, organizers, managers, and supervisors. See § 3B1.1(c). Moreover, the court ’ s decision was not clearly erroneous. Evidence presented at se nt e n c ing showed that Claiborne, through his contacts inside and outside prison, made all the arrangements necessary f or his codefendant to obtain marihuana and deliver it to Claiborne at the prison. Claiborne then provided instructions to his codefendant. That evidence was sufficient for the court to conclude that Claiborne directed his codefendant throughout the commission

o f the crime, which was sufficient to warrant the enhancement. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). Claiborne contends that his sentence was greater than nec e s s ary to achieve the purposes of sentencing

. Specifically, he argues that the district court
2 Case: 12-30197 Document: 00512014939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2012No. 12-30197

should have taken into account his good behavior while on supervised release, that he was the careta k e r f or his mother who had become paralyzed while he

was on supervised release, and that the state w ill have to pay for his mother’s

care while he is imprisoned. He also points out that while on supervised release, he received mental-health treatment and participated in volunteer activities in his community. Our review of the reasonableness of the sentence is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We presume that a within-guideline sentence, like Claiborne’s, is reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court heard t e s ti mony from Claiborne’s mother rega r di n g all the issues that Claiborne now raises. The court then carefully considered each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in turn, pointing out that some of them militated in favor of a lower sentence but ultimately concluding that, on balance, the factors as a whole supported a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. Claiborne’s argument s a m o unt to a disagreement with the balance that the district court struck, but this court will n o t r e w e igh the sentencing factors

. See United States v. McElwee , 646 F.3d 328, 344 (5th Cir. 2011). Claiborne has not rebutted the presumption th at h i s sentence is reasonable. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-30197 Document: 00512014939 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2012