United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10785

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jeremiah Pena Chavarria, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:21-CR-60-1 

______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jeremiah Pena Chavarria appeals his 84-month sentence for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The sentence represents a 27-month upward 

variance from the guidelines range based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, 

particularly the need to protect the public from further crimes. Chavarria 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-10785

2

argues that his non-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it fails to account for factors—his traumatic childhood, his history of 

drug addiction and mental health issues, and his successful work as a 

subcontractor—that should have received significant weight.

We review sentences, whether inside or outside the guidelines range, 

for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) and 

review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When, as in this case, the district court imposes a nonguidelines sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including 

the extent of any variance from the guidelines range, to determine whether 

the § 3553(a) factors support the sentence. See United States v. Broussard, 

669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012).

In this case, the district court’s reasons for imposing an upward 

variance were thoughtful and individualized. After thoroughly discussing 

relevant sentencing factors, including Chavarria’s personal history and 

criminal history, the district court concluded that a sentence of 84 months 

was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to protect the public from 

further crimes and provide adequate deterrence given Chavarria’s long 

history of engaging in dangerous conduct. That the district court gave greater 

weight to those factors than to the mitigating factors, which the court 

expressly considered, does not represent a clear error of judgment, and we 

will not reweigh the balancing of those sentencing factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. 

at 51. Chavarria’s disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. 

Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Further, although Chavarria does 

not raise any argument regarding the extent of the upward variance, the 

totality of the circumstances, including the extent of the variance and the 

§ 3553(a) factors identified by the district court, particularly the need for the 

Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-10785

3

sentence to protect the public in light of Chavarria’s lengthy and violent 

criminal history, support the imposition of the upward variance in this case. 

See id.; Broussard, 669 F.3d at 551.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2023