Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian Matthew BROWN, also known as Downtown, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-25
Citations: 697 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 16-11759 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian Matthew BROWN, also known as Downtown, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 425–425

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian Matthew BROWN, also known as Downtown, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11759 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed September 25, 2017
Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
James Patrick Whalen, Whalen Law Office, Frisco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Matthew Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Brown argues that his within-guideline sentence of 293 months is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Guidelines range was the result of the quantity of drugs involved in Brown's offense, his possession of firearms in connection with the crime, and his placement in the highest criminal history category. Brown argues that the district court failed to account for his personal history and placed too much weight on his criminal history, the majority of which- was a product of his drug addiction. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
The court heard Brown's mitigating argument that his crimes were largely a byproduct of a troubled childhood and his ongoing drug addiction and gave Brown "the benefit of the doubt" when it decided to sentence him within the recommended guideline range. The district court noted that even the lengthy Guideline sentence it gave might not have been enough given Brown's unlawful possession of multiple firearms and his extensive history of committing serious offenses. Brown's argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court's consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that his within-guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).
Brown has not shown that the district court gave undue weight to the factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). 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.