Court Opinion

ID: 9370557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 01:00:24.216978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.227328
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30256         Document: 00516644149             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30256
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                              February 13, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jeremy Levanda,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:20-CR-86-3
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jeremy Levanda appeals the 54-month, above-guidelines sentence
   imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
   intent to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute and
   possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting, and use
   of a communication facility and aiding and abetting. On appeal, Levanda

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30256       Document: 00516644149         Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                    No. 22-30256

   primarily asserts that the district court plainly erred by imposing an upward
   variance that was based on his need for rehabilitation from his drug addiction
   in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
            In Tapia, the Supreme Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a)
   “precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to
   promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia, 564 U.S. at 332. In this case,
   the district court did not lengthen his prison term based on his need for drug
   rehabilitation; instead, the district court explained that an upward variance
   was warranted because a sentence in the guidelines range would not
   adequately reflect the seriousness of Levanda’s crimes, promote respect for
   the law, provide just punishment or adequate deterrence, or protect the
   public from his future crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Because
   Levanda has not shown that his rehabilitative needs were a dominant factor
   in the district court’s decision to impose an above-guidelines sentence, he
   has failed to show error, plain or otherwise, in connection with his Tapia
   claim. See United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana, 957 F.3d 576, 579 (5th Cir.
   2020).
            Levanda’s arguments that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
   because the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history, which
   was already accounted for as part of his criminal history score, and because
   his sentence reflects an unwarranted sentence disparity between him and his
   codefendants likewise fail. A district court has the discretion to determine
   that the guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more
   factors and may conclude that a within-guidelines sentence would be
   insufficient to serve the objectives of sentencing. United States v. Lopez-
   Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, as noted, the district
   court explained its sentence in terms of several of the § 3553(a) factors and
   determined that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to achieve the
   goals of sentencing, and Levanda fails to show that his sentence actually

                                          2
Case: 22-30256     Document: 00516644149           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                    No. 22-30256

   represents an unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants. See
   United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Nothing in the record reflects that the district court failed to account
   for a factor that should have received significant weight or that it gave
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, and the sentence does
   not represent a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.
   See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2012).
   The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

                                         3