Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny Ashley HOPPER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-13
Citations: 548 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 13-50059
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny Ashley HOPPER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny Ashley HOPPER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50059
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kerrisa Joy Chelkowski, Law Office of Kerrisa Chelkowski, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Ashley Hopper appeals from the revocation of his term of probation and the imposition of a five year term of imprisonment. He contends that the district court failed to offer adequate reasons for imposing the five year term and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We review both contentions for plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.2012).
The district court's explanation for the five year sentence addressed Hopper's his tory and characteristics, the need to deter future crimes, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(6). Moreover, the record indicates that the district court listened to and considered Hopper's argument before imposing sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The district court adequately explained the reasons for the sentence. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 498.
Hopper's reasonableness contention is in part predicated on the district court's alleged failure to address the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because those factors were addressed, Hopper's contention is unavailing. Hopper's argument otherwise seeks to have this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, something this court will not do. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 343-44 (5th Cir.2011)
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.