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

No. 18

- 30979 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JAMARIO MONTREAL HARRIS, also known as Sea Biscuit, also known as Biscuit , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 217

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jamario Montreal Harris pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals his 100

- month within

- guideline s sentence of imprisonment, asserting that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it fails to account for the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between his sentence and the sentence s of

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 May 28, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30979 Document: 00514973568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2019No. 18

- 30979

2 other, similarly situated defendants, with similar prior convictions that occurred in Texas as opposed to Louisiana (the location of his prior offense)

. This court need not resolve the issue of whether Harris properly objected at sentencing, because Harris’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence fails under the ordinary, abuse

- of

- disc retion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525

- 26 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Sentences within a properly calculated guidelines range are presumed to be substantively reasonable. United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court infers from such a sentence “that the [district court] has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). “ The presumption [ of reasonableness ] i s rebutted only upon showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error in judgment in balancing sentencing factors

. ” Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186. Herein, the district court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments of defense counsel for a below

- guidelines sentence, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

– including specific consideration of the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities

– in finding that a within

- guidelines sentence was appropriate. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 519

. Accordingly, Harris’s contentions amount to no more than a mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within

- guidelines sentence. Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186. Moreover, Harris did not provide this court with any evidence

– statistical or otherwise

– to sh ow that his sentence actually resulted in a disparity among similarly situated defendants nationwide (or those whose prior offenses occurred in Texas). See id

. This court will not reweigh the Case: 18-30979 Document: 00514973568 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2019No. 18

- 30979

3 district court ’ s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors or reverse a sentence because this court reasonably might find that a different sentence may have been proper. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 54 (2007) ; see also United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 33 7, 339 (5th Cir. 2008)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 18-30979 Document: 00514973568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2019