Court Opinion

ID: 9963328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 00:00:45.588398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:45.976668
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30679           Document: 60-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                               FILED
                                                                         April 24, 2024
                                   No. 23-30679
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                 ____________

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Tydarrien T. Porter,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 5:22-CR-277-1
                  ______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Tydarrien T. Porter pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a machine
gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). The district court sentenced him to 84
months in prison to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Porter argues that the 84-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30679         Document: 60-1     Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/24/2024

                                  No. 23-30679

         We review sentences for reasonableness under a bifurcated review.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court “must first
ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error” and
then will consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Porter
does not assert any procedural error.            A sentence is substantively
unreasonable “if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received
significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing
factors.” United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
         Porter argues that the district court’s reliance on the nature of the
weapon rendered the sentence unreasonable because the nature of the
machine gun was accounted for by the Guidelines. This, however, is
permissible in determining whether an upward variance is appropriate. See
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008); United States
v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809-11 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court also
found that Porter had a history with dangerous weapons and no respect for
the law, pointing to Porter’s other criminal conduct including domestic
violence and illegal use of weapons. Porter does not argue that these facts are
materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. See United States v. Fuentes, 775
F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th
Cir. 2012).
         Porter’s disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the
factors and selected sentence does not show that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir.
2011).
         AFFIRMED.