### 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 i s substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give appropriate weight to the extenuating circumstances surrounding his possession of th e firearm

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 01/21/2020No. 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, howev er, 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 un reasonable. See United States v. Rodriguez , 602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 20 10). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos

Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) . “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence doe s 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 surround ing 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 insuffi cient Case: 18-31202 Document: 00515278699 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020No. 18

- 31202

3 to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez

Herrera , 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 re asons for its sentencing decision, Scott has failed to show that his sentence i s 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