Court Opinion

ID: 9901988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 20:00:27.51183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.754889
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50239         Document: 00516976789             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/22/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 23-50239                             November 22, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kenneth Paiva,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-243-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Kenneth Paiva appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty
   plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. First, Paiva
   argues that his above-guidelines, 180-month sentence is substantively
   unreasonable because it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. He contends that the district court

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50239      Document: 00516976789            Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                      No. 23-50239

   did not give weight to his personal history, but put undue weight on his
   criminal history, the seriousness of the offense of conviction, and the value
   of incarceration for deterrence.
          We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse
   of discretion. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 723 (5th Cir. 2015). In
   doing so, we consider the “totality of the circumstances, including the extent
   of any variance from the Guidelines range . . . to determine whether, as a
   matter of substance, the sentencing factors in [§] 3553(a) support the
   sentence.” United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir.
   2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A non-guidelines
   sentence such as Paiva’s unreasonably fails to reflect the § 3553(a) factors 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.”
   Diehl, 775 F.3d at 724.
          Here, Paiva fails to show that his 180-month sentence represents a
   clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See id. The
   record demonstrates that the district court considered Paiva’s history and
   characteristics. See § 3553(a)(1). Nonetheless, the district court chose to
   give greater weight to the need for Paiva’s sentence to “reflect the
   seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
   punishment for the offense,” “afford adequate deterrence to criminal
   conduct, and “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.”
   § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). The district court’s rationale for doing so is clear from
   the record. The district court was free to consider Paiva’s criminal history
   although it was already factored into the guidelines calculation. See United
   States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). Paiva’s argument essentially
   asks this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors and substitute its own
   judgment on appeal, which we will not do. See United States v. Hernandez,

                                           2
Case: 23-50239      Document: 00516976789          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                    No. 23-50239

   876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). We have affirmed greater upward variances
   as substantively reasonable. See, e.g., Key, 599 F.3d at 475-76.
          Paiva further argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in
   light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), because it exceeds
   Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. He is correct that his
   argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Alcantar,
   733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
   is AFFIRMED.
          We agree with Paiva that there is a clerical error in the written
   judgment. The district court orally pronounced that Paiva’s sentence will
   run concurrently to any sentence that issues from the matter pending in Ector
   County, Texas. However, the written judgment states that Paiva’s sentence
   shall run consecutively to any such sentence. Accordingly, this matter is
   REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the
   judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944,
   946 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                          3