United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30101

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alfred Stewart, III, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:22-CR-65-2

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alfred Stewart, III, challenges the sentence imposed following his

convictions for: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine, cocaine base, and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); felon in possession of firearm and ammunition, in 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30101 Document: 00516881447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023
No. 23-30101

2

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2); and possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A). He contends his within-Guidelines 97-months’ sentence,

imposed after denial of his downward-variance motion, is substantively 

unreasonable.

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

the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). 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).

Stewart fails to show his sentence does not account for a factor that 

should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing 

sentencing factors. E.g., United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 

2013) (outlining abuse of discretion for within-Guidelines sentence). The 

record reflects the district court considered Stewart’s contentions in support 

of a below-Guidelines sentence but rejected them. Ultimately, Stewart 

disagrees with the sentence imposed by the district court and fails to 

overcome the presumption that the court imposed a reasonable sentence. See

United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). He has not shown

his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

To the extent Stewart might present a Second Amendment challenge 

to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession), he has abandoned it by failing 

Case: 23-30101 Document: 00516881447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2023
No. 23-30101

3

to adequately brief it. E.g., United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 

(5th Cir. 2010) (“It is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal 

theory.” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30101 Document: 00516881447 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2023