IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50755

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LAMART JOEL KWAJA, also known as Michael Lamart, also known as Lmart 

Kwaja, also known as Lamart J. Kwaja, also known as Lamart J. Martin, also 

known as Lamart Joel Martin, also known as La Mart J. Martin,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-183-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lamart Joel Kwaja pleaded guilty of assault on a federal officer, and he 

was sentenced within the guidelines range to a 120-month term of 

imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release.

Kwaja contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying 

his motion to continue the sentencing hearing to enable him to obtain expert 

 

* 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

June 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50755 Document: 00514046899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2017
No. 16-50755

2

evaluation of the officer’s medical records and that the district court clearly 

erred in finding that the officer sustained a serious bodily injury for purposes 

of applying U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(a) & (b)(3)(C).

A preponderance of the evidence shows that the officer experienced 

extreme physical pain and a protracted impairment of his brain because of 

Kwaja’s assault. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); 

see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(L)). Kwaja has not shown that he was 

seriously prejudiced by the denial of his motion for a continuance, and the 

district court’s finding that the officer sustained a serious bodily injury is 

plausible in light of the record as a whole, and, therefore, is not clearly 

erroneous. See United States v. Stanford, 805 F.3d 557, 567 (5th Cir. 2015), 

cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 491 (2016); Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 618; see also United 

States v. Garza-Robles, 627 F.3d 161, 169-70 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 37 (5th Cir. 1993).

Next, Kwaja asserts that, in applying U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b), the district 

court erred in finding that the assault was motivated by the officer’s status as 

a government official. The sole reason Kwaja’s altercation with the officer

arose was because the officer was acting in his official capacity as a federal 

policeman. The district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Williams, 

520 F.3d 414, 424 (5th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Kwaja contends that the sentence is greater than necessary to 

satisfy the statutory sentencing factors and, therefore, is substantively 

unreasonable. Kwaja’s mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing 

of the statutory factors is insufficient to overcome the presumption of 

reasonableness applicable to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States 

v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50755 Document: 00514046899 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2017