### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

N o. 12-10573 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. KEVIN DEWAYNE BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-196-4

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin Dewayne Brooks appeals the 70-month sentence o f imprisonment imposed by the d istrict court following his guilty p l e a c o nviction of making, possessing, and uttering a forged and counterfeit security, and aiding and abetting. H e argues that his sentence is p rocedurally u nreasonable because the district court did n ot address his argument that his mental health d isorders should be taken into account in determining his senten c e . I n a similar vein, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 6, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10573 Document: 00512165729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2013No. 12-10573

Brooks asserts that the district court’s failure to c onsider his ment a l h e alth disorders resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. Following United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), our review of sentences is for r easonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 4 9-51 (2007). We

e n g a g e in a b ifurcated review, first ensuring t hat the district c ourt committ e d

no significant procedural error. See id. at 51. I f the s e n t ence is procedurally sound, we then consider whether the sentence i s s ubstantively reasonable. I d

. We r ecognize three types of sentences: a sentence within the advisory guidelines range, “an upward or downward d eparture a s allowed by the Guidelines,” and a non-Guideline “variance” that i s not based on the Guidelines rules for departures. United States v. Brantley , 537 F.3d 347 , 3 4 9 (5th Cir. 2008). The district cour t e x plained that its chosen sentence was appropriate both as an upward departure u nder U .S.S.G. § 4A1.3 and as an upward variance from the guideline range of 37 to 46 month s o f imprisonment. The

c h a r a cterization, h owever, is not significant if “the sentence imposed was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors.” Id. Brooks’s general objection t o the p r o c e du r a l r e a s o n ab l e n e s s o f h i s s entence

was insufficiently specific to preserve the issue he raises o n appeal. See United States v. Nea l , 5 7 8 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we review his procedural reasonableness c hallenge for p lain error. See United S tates v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). T o succeed on plain e rror review, Brooks must show (1) a forfeited e rror (2) that i s clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, this court m ay exercise its discr e t i o n “ t o remedy the

error . . . if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of j udicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, bracketing, and citation omitted).

2 Case: 12-10573 Document: 00512165729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2013No. 12-10573

“[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply t h e G uidelines to a particular
case, doing so will not necessarily require l engthy explanation.” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). However, “[w]here the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a d ifferent sentence

. . . the judge will normally go fu r ther and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Id. at 357. Nevertheless, t he district court is n ot required to provide specific reasons for its rejection of a defendant’s arguments for a lower sentence. See id. After r eviewing the record, we are satisfied that t he district c ourt p rovided

a s ufficient e xplanation for i t s above-guidelines s entence. See id. a t 356-57. However, even a ssuming arguendo that t h e district court erred b y failing explicitly to address Brooks’s argument c o ncerning his mental health disorders, Brooks h as not made t he required showing of an effect on h is substantial rights See United S tates v. Mondragon-Santiago , 5 6 4 F

. 3 d 357, 364 (5th C ir. 2009). Brooks has failed to show reversible procedural error. We review the s u b s t a n t ive reasonableness of Brooks’s sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See United S tates v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 4 75 (5th Cir. 2010). Our examination of the r ecord and of the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances satisfies u s t h a t t he district court properly relied on the § 3553(a) factors in decidi n g t o impose a n upward variance and in determining the e xtent of t hat variance. See Brantley , 537 F.3d at 349. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-10573 Document: 00512165729 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2013