IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20512

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADARRION DEONTE CHRISTIE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-117-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adarrion Deonte Christie pleaded guilty to carjacking and to using, 

brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence; he received a within-guidelines sentence of 51 months in prison for 

the carjacking and a consecutive 120-month sentence for the firearm offense. 

On appeal, Christie contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court failed to give reasons. We review a sentence to 

 

* 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 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20512 Document: 00514539306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2018
No. 17-20512

2

determine whether the district court committed a significant procedural error, 

including “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Because Christie did not object in the district court to the adequacy of 

the reasons for the sentence, we review for plain error. United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain 

error review, Christie must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and 

that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error 

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

judicial proceedings. Id.; see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 

1897, 1905 (2018) (discussing plain error review and focusing on the 

discretionary fourth prong).1

At sentencing, the district court listened to Christie’s arguments for a 

lower sentence, including his time spent in state custody, for which he would 

not receive credit against his federal sentence; his acceptance of responsibility 

and admission to other offenses; and the likelihood of rehabilitation given his 

youth and strong family support. Far from being a passive observer at the 

hearing, the district judge was meaningfully engaged in the process, asking 

questions and making comments throughout. The court’s statements at the 

hearing reflect its concerns that Christie was the one who wielded a firearm

and caused serious injury to the victim, his acknowledgment that he had 

participated in other violent crimes, and his inadequate explanations for 

choosing to embark on a path of criminal activity. Even if the district court 

“might have said more,” the record makes clear that the court considered “the 

 

1 Christie does not contest the actual calculation of the guidelines; further, we do not 

reach the fourth prong because we conclude that the district court did not commit a clear or 

obvious error.

 Case: 17-20512 Document: 00514539306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2018
No. 17-20512

3

evidence and arguments,” and its statement of reasons for the sentence 

imposed was “legally sufficient.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 

(2007); see also Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 360 (stating that the reasons 

must be sufficient to permit the appellate court to conduct a meaningful 

review). Thus, Christie has not shown a clear or obvious error with respect to 

the adequacy of the reasons for the sentence imposed. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135. Moreover, Christie has not shown any limitations on the court’s reasons 

affected his substantial rights, as he has not established that a more thorough 

explanation would have resulted in a lower sentence. See MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65; United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 263-64 

(5th Cir. 2009) (a case involving an above-guidelines sentence concluding that 

there is no effect on substantial rights when the district court’s reasoning can 

be discerned from the record).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-20512 Document: 00514539306 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/03/2018