Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Scottron Cordell MEDLOCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 15-30204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Scottron Cordell MEDLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Scottron Cordell MEDLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30204
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 2015.
Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brandon Bonaparte Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Charles H. Kammer, III, Kammer & Huckaby, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Scottron Cordell Medlock appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Med-lock to 188 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to a 10-year state sentence, and four years of supervised release. Medlock contends that the district court's imposition of a consecutive sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The consecutive nature of Medlock's sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir.2006). The district court was aware of the mitigating circumstances offered by Medlock and explicitly took some of them into account in selecting the sentence. However, in imposing a consecutive sentence, the district court gave more weight to Medlock's personal and criminal history and characteristics. Medlo'ck's "belief that the mitigating factors presented for the court's consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb this presumption." United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir.2012).
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Pursuant, to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except-under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.