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

No. 12-10548 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHRISTOPHER RAY KINSEY, also known as Bandido Skinny, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-193-2

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Christopher Ray K i n s e y p l e a d e d guilty t o c o n spiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute a detectable amount of methamphetamine. H e now appeals his within-guidelines, concurrent 235-month sentences as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review sentences f o r r e a sonableness by e ngaging in a bifurcated review. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. 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 27, 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: 12-10548 Document: 00512188645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2013No. 12-10548

Cisneros-Gutierrez , 5 17 F.3d 751, 764 (5th C ir. 2008). First, we ensure that the sentencing court committed no s i gnificant procedural error, such a s “failing to calculate (or i mproperly calculating) t h e Guidelines range, treating the Guide l i n e s a s mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence b ased on clearly er r o n e o u s facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. Ki n s ey concedes that he did not object t o his sentence on procedural grounds, so that the procedural issue he raises is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2 009). A plain

error is a forfeited e r r o r th at i s clear or obvious and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v . Ellis , 564 F

. 3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2 009). “To affect the defendant’s substantial rights, the d efendant must demonstrate that the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. In the context of sentencing, we ask whether the error i ncreased the term o f a sentence, such that there is a r easonable probability of a lower sentence on remand.” United States v. Escalante-Reyes , 689 F.3d 415, 424 ( 5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if the f oregoing elements are shown, we have the discretion t o correct the error only if i t “seriously affects the f a i r n e s s, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Ellis , 564 F

. 3 d a t 377 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Kinsey asserts that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court gave inadequate reasons in light of his nonfrivolous arguments for

a below-guidelines sentence. Sentences that fall within the advisory guidelines range require “little explanation.” Mondragon-Santiago , 5 64 F.3d at 3 62. The district court heard a nd considered Kinsey’s arguments then stated, “I’m going to take into account a lot of the things you’ve said in deciding where to impose a sentence and, frankly it’s going to be significantly lower than I had intended originally.” The court explained that Kinsey’s sentence “is one that adequately
2 Case: 12-10548 Document: 00512188645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2013No. 12-10548

and appropriately addresses all the factors the Court should consider under” § 3553(a). These stated re asons are sufficient to satisfy u s that the district court considered Kinsey’s arguments and had “ a reasoned b asis f or e x e rc i s i n g [its] own legal decis i o n m a k i n g authority.” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007). As Kinsey cannot show that a more d etailed explanation by the district court would have changed the sentence he received, his c laim fails on plain error review. See Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d at 365. Kinsey also c ontends that his sentence i s substantively unre a s o n able because (1) it is greater than needed to meet the sentencing goals of § 3 553(a) in light of his subsequent r ehabilitation a nd (2) the amount s o f drugs he sold or guarded w e re set u nilaterally by undercover a gents. We consider the

“ s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d u n d e r a n abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall , 5 52 U.S. a t 51. Therefore, Kinsey’s withinguidelines sentence i s “presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). As Kinsey has not s hown that “ s e nt e n c i n g e ntr a p m e nt” c o n s titutes a factor that s hould have received significant weight in determining h is sentence, he has not establ i s h e d t hat the district c ourt’s failure to impose a lesser sentence on this basis rendered his sentence unreasonable. See U n ited States v . J

ones , 664 F.3d 9 66, 984 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 1 32 S. Ct. 2728 (2012). Accordingly, Kinsey has not alleged any b asis on which h is participation in transporting and guarding m ethamphetamine w a s n ot c onduct that the district court p roperly

c o n s i d e r e d in determining his sentence

. And, the district court did consider Kinsey’s rehabilitative efforts: They were factored i n t o the selection of a withinguidelines sentence after the district court had originally intended for Kinsey to

s e rve m ore than 240 months i n prison by ordering his sentence s t o r u n consecutively.

3 Case: 12-10548 Document: 00512188645 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2013No. 12-10548

As Kinsey has not s hown that the district court plainly e rred regarding its stated reasons f

or selecting the sentence and has not shown that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-10548 Document: 00512188645 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/27/2013