IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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

for 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 Kinsey pleaded guilty to conspiracy

to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession with

the intent to distribute a detectable amount of methamphetamine. He now

appeals his within-guidelines, concurrent 235-month sentences as procedurally

and substantively unreasonable.

We review sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated

review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 27, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-10548 Document: 00512188645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2013
No. 12-10548

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, we ensure that the

sentencing court committed no significant procedural error, such as “failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,

selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous 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.

Kinsey concedes that he did not object to 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. 2009). A plain

error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects the defendant’s

substantial rights. United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir. 2009). “To

affect the defendant’s substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that

the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. In the context

of sentencing, we ask whether the error increased the term of a sentence, such

that there is a reasonable 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 foregoing elements are shown, we have 

the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Ellis, 564 F.3d at 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, 564 F.3d at 362. The

district court heard and 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: 03/27/2013
No. 12-10548

and appropriately addresses all the factors the Court should consider under”

§ 3553(a).

These stated reasons are sufficient to satisfy us that the district court

considered Kinsey’s arguments and had “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own

legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58

(2007). As Kinsey cannot show that a more detailed explanation by the district

court would have changed the sentence he received, his claim fails on plain error

review. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365.

Kinsey also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because (1) it is greater than needed to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a) in

light of his subsequent rehabilitation and (2) the amounts of drugs he sold or

guarded were set unilaterally by undercover agents. We consider the

“substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Therefore, Kinsey’s withinguidelines sentence is “presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435

F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

As Kinsey has not shown that “sentencing entrapment” constitutes a factor

that should have received significant weight in determining his sentence, he has

not established that the district court’s failure to impose a lesser sentence on

this basis rendered his sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Jones, 664

F.3d 966, 984 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2728 (2012). Accordingly,

Kinsey has not alleged any basis on which his participation in transporting and

guarding methamphetamine was not conduct that the district court properly

considered in determining his sentence. And, the district court did consider

Kinsey’s rehabilitative efforts: They were factored into the selection of a withinguidelines sentence after the district court had originally intended for Kinsey to

serve more than 240 months in prison by ordering his sentences to run

consecutively.

3

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

As Kinsey has not shown that the district court plainly erred regarding its

stated reasons for 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