IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10603

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAELA DANESE MONCRIEF, also known as Mickey,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-295-6

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michaela Danese Moncrief appeals the 108-month below-guidelines 

sentenced imposed following her conviction for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine. Moncrief argues that her sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because the lower sentences that her coconspirators received resulted in unwarranted sentencing disparities under 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10603 Document: 00515342068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 19-10603

2

Where the issue has been properly preserved, this court reviews the 

reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 46, 51 (2007). By failing to raise the specific issue that she now raises on 

appeal, Moncrief arguably forfeited the issue, which would result in review for 

plain error only. See United States v. Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 

2009); United States v. Torres-Perez, 777 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Because her claim fails under the more favorable standard of review, we need 

not reach the issue.

A sentence within or below a properly calculated guidelines range is 

entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. 

Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 

173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing 

that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant 

weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it 

represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Cooks, 

589 F.3d at 186.

Section 3553(a)(6) instructs the district court to consider “the need to 

avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar 

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” but it “requires the 

district court to avoid only unwarranted disparities between similarly situated 

defendants nationwide.” United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 

(5th Cir. 2010). “[I]t does not require the district court to avoid sentencing 

disparities between co-defendants who might not be similarly situated.” Id.

Because Moncrief cites only the sentences of her co-conspirators as 

evidence of unwarranted sentencing disparities, she necessarily fails to 

establish that the district court failed to account for unwarranted sentencing 

disparities. See United States v. Cedillo-Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397, 406 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 19-10603 Document: 00515342068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 19-10603

3

2014). To the extent that Moncrief challenges the length of her belowguidelines sentence, her mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing 

of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors is insufficient to establish that the sentence 

is substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 19-10603 Document: 00515342068 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2020