Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jody Ron SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 17-60445 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jody Ron SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jody Ron SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-60445 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 19, 2018
Gregory Layne Kennedy, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael L. Scott, Esq., Thomas Creagher Turner, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jody Ron Solomon appeals the 11-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following its revocation of his prior three-year term of supervised release. Solomon challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the probation officer "failed to perform his obligations in this case." He asserts that "[rjather than fulfilling his responsibility to help rehabilitate [him]," the probation officer "prematurely moved to revoke his supervised release." Solomon also takes issue with the district court's reliance on a letter from the probation officer stating that he was "'essentially unmanageable,' even though he had been on supervised release for only about a month."
The record reflects that the district court was aware of the factors Solomon believed merited a non-revocation sentence. However, after "carefully considering]" the advisory policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. and the "appropriate factors to be considered in imposing a sentence" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3583(e)(3), the district court concluded that an 11-month term of imprisonment was appropriate. Solomon's arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the district court's weighing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines revocation sentence. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.