United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10245

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Revion Daymon Long, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-328-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Revion Daymon Long pleaded guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to an above-Guidelines term of 

120 months imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because it did not adequately consider Long’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10245 Document: 00515622521 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
No. 20-10245

2

difficult upbringing. Additionally, he argues that the district court erred by 

ordering that the sentence to the instant offense run consecutively to any 

sentence imposed for a pending state failure to identify charge, as the state 

charge should have been considered relevant conduct to the federal charge.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the 

abuse-of-discretion standard, whether the sentence is inside or outside of the 

guidelines range. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th 

Cir. 2008). A sentence above the Guidelines range is unreasonable if it “(1) 

does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) 

gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents 

a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States

v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). 

When imposing an above-guidelines sentence, the district court 

“must more thoroughly articulate its reasons” than for a within Guidelines 

sentence, though it “need not engage in robotic incantations that each [18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factor has been considered.” Smith, 440 F.3d at 708

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court “owes deference 

to the district court's determination of the appropriate sentence based on the 

§ 3553(a) factors and may not reverse the district court's ruling just because 

it would have determined that an alternative sentence was appropriate.” 

United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).

Long fails to make the requisite showing that the sentence is 

substantially unreasonable. The district court heard the parties’ arguments 

and agreed with the Government that a sentence of 120 months was 

appropriate for the purpose of deterrence, a proper consideration (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)), as Long “has been a prolific thief over this approximately 

12 year period and the previous punishments have not deterred him.” 

Case: 20-10245 Document: 00515622521 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
No. 20-10245

3

Investigation into the instant case revealed that Long had illegally possessed 

or dealt 67 firearms. 

The district court’s decision to impose a consecutive, rather than 

concurrent, sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 is reviewed de novo. 

United States v. Rangel, 319 F.3d 710, 714 (5th Cir. 2003). However, it is not 

clear that Long preserved the error for appeal, potentially subjecting it to 

plain error review. United States v. Torrez, 40 F.3d 84, 86 (5th Cir. 1994); see

United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying plainerror review to consecutive sentencing issue when defendant’s objection 

cited no legal basis). This court does not reach the issue, as Long’s claim fails 

under either standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th 

Cir. 2008).

General relevant conduct principles determine whether convictions 

are relevant to one another for purposes of concurrent and consecutive 

sentences. §5G1.3(c). The district court could have inferred from the 

presentence report that Long did not possess a firearm when he was arrested 

and committed the state-law offense of failing to identify himself. See United 

States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287. 290 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court’s 

finding that Long’s state offense was not relevant conduct to his federal 

offense was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Brummett, 355 F.3d 

343, 344 (5th Cir. 2003). Assuming, arguendo, that the failure to identify 

charge was relevant to the felon in possession of a firearm charge, any error 

is harmless. See United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645, 651 (5th Cir. 2018). 

After explaining that the sentence was needed for deterrence, the district 

judge explicitly stated that “even if I'm wrong as to any of my rulings on any 

of the objections or running any of the sentences consecutive or concurrent, 

I believe this sentence is needed for these reasons.” The district judge’s

statement convincingly shows that he had a specific sentence in mind and 

Case: 20-10245 Document: 00515622521 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
No. 20-10245

4

would have imposed it notwithstanding the error. See Halverson, 897 F.3d at 

651.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10245 Document: 00515622521 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/02/2020