IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60219

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ATHENA MARIE BYRD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:11-CR-46-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Athena Marie Byrd pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to kidnap for

ransom and one count of aiding and abetting in kidnapping. The district court

sentenced Byrd at the bottom of the guidelines range of imprisonment, to 235

months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Byrd appeals her

sentence of imprisonment, arguing that the sentence was substantively

unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-60219 Document: 00512120273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2013
No. 12-60219

We review sentences for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated

review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). First, we must ensure that the

sentencing court committed no significant procedural error. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

If the sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we should then consider the

“substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. Byrd raises no claim of procedural error and

challenges only her sentence’s substantive reasonableness.

When, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly

calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Byrd

attempts to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, asserting that the district

court failed to consider certain factors that should have received significant

weight and that the sentence represents a clear error of judgment in balancing

the sentencing factors. She notes in this regard that she suffered a lack of

guidance as a youth and that she suffers from addiction to heroin and

methamphetamine. She also emphasizes her return to the scene of the crime

with the intention of checking on the victim and her cooperation with the

Government, which she argues evidence remorse and rehabilitation.

Byrd essentially seeks to have her sentence vacated based on a reweighing

of the § 3553(a) factors on appeal. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior

position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a

particular defendant.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339

(5th Cir. 2008). That we “might reasonably have concluded that a different

sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Byrd’s disagreement with the propriety of the sentence

imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to the within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. See

United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-60219 Document: 00512120273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2013