IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10855

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DAVID LEWIS MEALS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-23-1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lewis Meals, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession, with intent to 

distribute, methamphetamine and was sentenced inter alia, to 240 months’ 

imprisonment. Meals claims the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the applicable methamphetamine Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1

(unlawful manufacturing, importing, or trafficking of drugs) overstates the 

seriousness of his offense and is not empirically based.

* 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 11, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10855 Document: 00512695217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2014
No. 13-10855

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and 

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must 

still properly calculate the Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on 

the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that 

respect, for issues preserved in district court, as in this instance, its application 

of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. 

E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); 

United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).

Meals does not claim procedural error. Instead, as noted, he maintains 

his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Because Meals’ sentence falls 

within the applicable statutory and advisory Guidelines-sentencing range, we 

afford it a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 

F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 

(2007) (upholding the application of the presumption of reasonableness to 

sentences within a properly calculated Guidelines range). To rebut this 

presumption, Meals must show “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 [the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)] sentencing factors”. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 

186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Meals contends that, in the light of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 

85 (2007), the applicable methamphetamine Guideline lacks an empirical 

basis, and, therefore, the Guideline does not help arrive at a sentence that is 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the goals of sentencing. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Meals’ contention is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. 

E.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 

2

 Case: 13-10855 Document: 00512695217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2014
No. 13-10855

2009). Because Meals has not shown the district court failed to give proper 

weight to any § 3553(a) factor, he fails to rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-10855 Document: 00512695217 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2014