IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50563

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO ANTONIO TITSWORTH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-432-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Antonio Titsworth appeals the 72-month sentence imposed after 

his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He 

maintains that his sentence, which resulted from the district court upwardly 

varying from the guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. Because he 

did not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our

review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

 

* 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

March 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50563 Document: 00513896449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2017
No. 16-50563

2

Titsworth contends that the district court gave inordinate weight to his 

criminal history, which involved remote convictions, and did not properly take 

into account his personal history and circumstances. He also argues that the 

district court unfairly punished him for relevant conduct and that his sentence 

was greater than necessary to provide adequate deterrence, protect the public, 

and provide him with needed training, medical care, or correctional treatment.

He has failed to establish that the district court plainly erred in varying 

upwardly from the guidelines range. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. The district 

court had an adequate basis for the sentence imposed and was guided by the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in deciding that an upward variance was merited. 

Titsworth’s criminal history was an appropriate factor for the district court to 

consider in imposing an upward variance, see United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 

704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006), and the district court did not have to afford any aspect 

of his history and personal circumstances dispositive weight, see United States 

v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Also, the district court 

could consider the relevant conduct set forth in the presentence report, which 

Titsworth did not establish was materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. 

See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 591 (5th Cir. 2013); United States 

v. Fowler, 216 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2000); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). To the 

extent that he disagrees with his sentence and the manner in which the district 

court weighed the § 3553(a) factors, he has not shown error. See Gall v. United 

States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). His sentence, which was 15 months above the 

top of the applicable advisory guidelines range, was not so disproportionate as 

to overcome the factors that warranted its imposition. See United States v. 

Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-50563 Document: 00513896449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2017