IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60541

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN BALLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:17-CR-155-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Balla pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On 

appeal, he challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 60-month, aboveguidelines sentence. He contends that the district court erred in balancing the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because he was not committing a violent felony at 

the time of arrest, there were no victims, he accepted full responsibility, he has 

 

* 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

April 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60541 Document: 00514933529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
No. 18-60541

2

no convictions for violent crimes, and the probation officer did not identify any 

factors warranting an upward variance. 

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record reflects that the district court considered 

the advisory guidelines range, the § 3553(a) factors, the facts set forth in the 

presentence report, Balla’s arguments in mitigation of sentence, and the 

Government’s request for an upward departure. The district court properly 

relied on Balla’s “substantial” criminal history in varying upwards from the 

guidelines range. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Balla fails to show that his sentence does not account for a factor that should 

have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the 

sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 

2006). His argument amounts to mere disagreement with the district court’s 

weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is not a sufficient ground for reversal. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Balla also contends that the district court abused its discretion by 

requiring him, as a special condition of supervised release, to submit his 

electronic communication devices to searches by a probation officer upon 

reasonable suspicion that he violated a condition of his supervision and that 

the areas to be searched contained evidence of the violation. We review 

challenges to special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 2016). First, we consider 

whether a condition is reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors. 

Id. Next, “the condition must be narrowly tailored such that it does not involve 

a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to fulfill the 

 Case: 18-60541 Document: 00514933529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2019
No. 18-60541

3

purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562, 

570 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). 

Finally, the condition must be “consistent with the pertinent policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Winding, 817 F.3d at 915 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The condition is reasonably related to Balla’s criminal history and the 

sentencing goals of deterring future criminal conduct and protecting the public 

from his future crimes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d)(1), 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)–(C); 

Winding, 817 F.3d at 915-16. Balla fails to show that the condition involves a 

greater deprivation of liberty than necessary because “the possibility of 

intermittent searches [is not] too much of a burden on [Balla’s] already reduced 

liberty interest in light of his prior criminal history.” Winding, 817 F.3d at 

917; see § 3583(d)(2). Finally, the condition is not inconsistent with the 

pertinent policy statement. See § 3583(d)(3); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d), p.s.; see also

United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 2013) (“A district court 

has discretion to craft conditions of supervised release, even if the Guidelines 

do not recommend those conditions.”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-60541 Document: 00514933529 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2019