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-guidelines 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 sentences of 

 

* 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

May 28, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30979 Document: 00514973568 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2019
No. 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-discretion 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] is 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 show 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: 05/28/2019
No. 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 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-30979 Document: 00514973568 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2019