IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60842

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

EDDIE C. OUTLAW,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:14-CR-80-1

Before CLEMENT, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie C. Outlaw pleaded guilty of five counts of distribution of cocaine 

base, and the district court varied upward from the 57-to-71-month guidelines 

range in imposing concurrent 78-month terms of imprisonment and concurrent 

three-year periods of supervised release as well as a $1,500 fine. Outlaw has 

appealed his sentence, contending that the above-guidelines sentence was 

 

* 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

July 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60842 Document: 00513125760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 14-60842

2

substantively unreasonable and that the district court’s reasons for the 

sentence imposed were inadequate.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are 

reviewed for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse 

of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th 

Cir. 2010) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007)). Because 

Outlaw did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for its 

upward variance, this court’s review of that question is for plain error. See 

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing 

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 2008)). To show 

plain error, Outlaw must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993)). If he 

makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but 

only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See id. (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 736).

When the district court imposes a non-guidelines sentence, it must 

articulate its reasons for the sentence imposed more thoroughly. United States 

v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Mares, 402 

F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2006)). Its reasons should be fact-specific and 

consistent with the statutory sentencing factors. Id. (citing Mares, 402 F.3d at 

519). “The court, however, need not engage in ‘robotic incantations that each 

statutory factor has been considered.’” Id. (quoting United States v. 

Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005)). Where the record makes the 

sentencing judge’s reasoning clear and allows for effective review, no further 

explanation is required. United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 

2013) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007)).

 Case: 14-60842 Document: 00513125760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 14-60842

3

Contrary to Outlaw’s assertions on appeal, it was not improper for the 

district court to consider Outlaw’s criminal history in imposing a nonguidelines sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 709 (citing Mares, 402 F.3d at 

519). The district court considered the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and Outlaw’s history and characteristics in determining that a more lengthy 

sentence was necessary to provide an adequate punishment, to deter future 

criminal conduct, and to protect the public from Outlaw’s criminality. See id.

(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The district court’s reasons were adequate, and 

the seven-month upward variance was not substantively unreasonable. There 

was no error, plain or otherwise. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-60842 Document: 00513125760 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2015