United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30401

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Dasmore T. Coleman, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:22-CR-211-1 

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dasmore T. Coleman pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 

methamphetamine and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 264 

months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. He 

now appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 

Specifically, he contends that the district court did not adequately consider 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 18, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2023
No. 23-30401

2

that (1) the underlying methamphetamine transactions were initiated by a 

confidential informant, (2) law enforcement dictated the quantity of drugs 

purchased by the informant, (3) the offense did not involve violence, and 

(4) Coleman was a “low-level” street dealer, instead of a major drug 

trafficker or repeat violent offender. Further, he argues that his offense was 

relatively minor due to the amount of drugs involved. According to Coleman, 

the district court only considered the punitive 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors and did not consider whether the sentence was greater than necessary 

to achieve the goals of deterrence, respect for the law, protection of the 

public, and rehabilitation. 

Coleman preserved this issue for appeal by “advocat[ing] for a 

sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed” in the district court. 

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). We review 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United 

States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). A discretionary sentence 

imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness, which may be rebutted “by showing that the 

sentence does not account for factors that should receive significant weight, 

gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factors, or represents a clear 

error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Rashad, 687 F.3d at 644. 

A “disagreement” either “with the propriety of the sentence imposed” or 

with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to 

rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 

398 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 

2016). 

Here, the record reflects that the district court considered the 

presentence report, which contained all relevant information about the 

underlying offense and Coleman’s history and characteristics, as well as the 

Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2023
No. 23-30401

3

parties’ arguments, and the record generally, which contained defense 

counsel’s sentencing memorandum and letters of support from Coleman’s 

family and friends. Further, the district court stated that it considered the 

§ 3553(a) factors and “appropriate policy concerns.” Ultimately, the district 

court concluded that the guidelines range was fair and reasonable, and a 264-

month sentence, at the lower end of the range, was warranted. Essentially, 

Coleman asks this court to “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute 

our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do.” United 

States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Coleman has 

not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his withinguidelines sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion. See id.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2023