### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60278 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MELVIN B. SYKES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:06

- CR

- 36

- 1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melvin B. Sykes appeals the statutory maximum 24

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release, arguing that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because he preserved his appellate argument by objection below, we review the sentence imposed unde r the deferential plainly unreasonable standard, employing a two

- step process. See United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). First, w e ensure

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 2, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014No. 14

- 60278
that the district court did not commi t significant procedural error; if the re is

no significan t procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard, “examining the to tality of the circumstances.” United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 326 , 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks an d citation omitted). According to Sykes , the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain its reasons for the chosen sentence, specifically failing to offer reasons for rejecting his arguments in mitigation of sentence. He is mistake n. The district court listened to Sykes’s arguments in mitigation but also considered other re levant sentencing fact ors, including his personal history and characteristics and the need to protect the public

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C), and (a )(2)(D). Although t he court did not explicitly state that it had done so, the record makes clear that it considered and rejected Sykes’s mitigation argument s in light of the other factors, and more extensive reasons were not required. See Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). Sykes alternatively co ntends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable . He complains that the court did not give adequate weight to his mitigation arguments and erroneously considered an improper sentencing fact or, the fifth charged violation

. Sykes’s argument that the district c ourt improperly considered the fifth charged violation is not well

- taken as t he record shows that the court d eclined to consider the charge after determining that there was insufficient proof to support it. The district court acted within its statutory authority by imposing a 24

- month sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. McKinney , 520 F.3d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Sykes’s appellate argument is essentially an attempt to have this court reweig h the § 3553(a) factors, which we will not do. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) ; Miller , 634 F.3d at 483. I n

2 Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014No. 14

- 60278 light of the facts of the case, Sykes has not shown that it was a clear error of judgment for the dist rict court to give greater weight to his perso nal history and characteristics and the need to protect the public than to his arguments in mitigation. See Warren , 720 F.3d at 3 32. Accordingly, he has failed to show an abuse of discretion on the district c ourt’s part , and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

3 Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2014