Court Opinion

ID: 9353515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 01:00:18.360463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:08:03.608821
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30365         Document: 00516607032             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2023

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

                                       No. 22-30365
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                January 11, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Antoyn A. Wordlaw,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-223-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Antoyn A. Wordlaw appeals his sentence of 234 months of
   imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent
   to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
   (b)(1)(B). He contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and
   that the district court erroneously balanced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
   giving undue weight to his criminal history and the resulting sentencing range
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30365      Document: 00516607032          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/11/2023

                                    No. 22-30365

   calculated under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 without adequately considering the need
   to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
          This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an
   abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This
   court’s review of the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is “highly
   deferential, because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts
   and judge their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
   defendant.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A sentence within a properly
   calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See id.
          In this case, the district court considered the Guidelines and
   Wordlaw’s arguments for a sentence below the guidelines range; it ultimately
   concluded that based on all of the sentencing factors, the guidelines range
   was appropriate.     Wordlaw’s appellate arguments amount to a mere
   disagreement with the weight that the district court afforded to his mitigating
   arguments and his displeasure with the sentence imposed, which is
   insufficient to support his contention that the sentence was unreasonable.
   See United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 2014); United
   States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Wordlaw has
   failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
   guidelines sentence and has not shown that the district court abused its
   discretion. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009);
   Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67.
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         2