Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon Venson TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-02
Citations: 581 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 14-60046
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon Venson TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brandon Venson TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-60046
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 2, 2014.
Susan Spears Bradley, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Justin Strauss Cluck, Esq., Smith Whaley, P.L.L.C., Holly Springs, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Venson Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced within the applicable guidelines range to 70 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to any other state or federal sentence.
Taylor challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court failed to consider mitigating factors, namely, his personal history and characteristics. As he did in the district court, Taylor directs attention to his mental health history and treatment. "[A] sentence within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). "The presumption is rebutted only upon a 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 of judgment in balancing sentencing factors." United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009).
The district court considered the presentence investigation report, Taylor's motion for a downward variance, and his counsel's arguments at sentencing. Although Taylor pointed to mitigating evidence and circumstances that could have justified a lesser sentence, the court concluded a lesser sentence was not warranted. Specifically, it expressed concerns over, inter alia, Taylor's "troubling" offender characteristics and his criminal history. Taylor has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines-range sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
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.