IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31202

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVE SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CR-106-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steve Scott appeals his 84-month, within-guidelines sentence for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)

and 924(a)(2). He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the extenuating 

circumstances surrounding his possession of the firearm.

 

* 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

January 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31202 Document: 00515278699 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
No. 18-31202

2

We review “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). When a defendant fails to object to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence, however, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391–92 (5th Cir. 2007). Scott admits that he did not object 

to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence at the time it was imposed,

but he argues that an objection was not required to preserve error. Even under 

the more lenient standard of review, Scott fails to demonstrate that his 

sentence was substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 

F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 2010). 

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated 

guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). “The presumption is rebutted 

only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should 

receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

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

sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

The record reflects that the district court considered both Scott’s 

mitigation arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing his 

sentence. Notably, the district court explicitly acknowledged the extenuating 

circumstances surrounding Scott’s possession of the firearm—including his

desire to protect himself from potential future violence—and observed that 

these circumstances justified a lesser sentence. However, instead of the 70-

month sentence requested by Scott, the district court ultimately concluded that 

a sentence near the top of the guidelines range was appropriate due to Scott’s

lengthy criminal record. Scott’s arguments amount to a mere disagreement 

with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient 

 Case: 18-31202 Document: 00515278699 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
No. 18-31202

3

to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2008). Given the significant deference 

that is due to a district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and the 

district court’s reasons for its sentencing decision, Scott has failed to show that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50–53; 

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 338–39. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-31202 Document: 00515278699 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2020