Court Opinion

ID: 9382902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 00:00:36.420602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.366665
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50683        Document: 00516692022             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50683
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                March 28, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Alfredo Perez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 6:21-CR-111-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Alfredo Perez appeals his 100-month sentence for possessing a
   firearm as a convicted felon. Although the advisory guidelines range was 30
   to 37 months of imprisonment, the district court applied an upward variance
   to 100 months of imprisonment. Perez challenges the procedural and
   substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50683       Document: 00516692022         Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                    No. 22-50683

          First, Perez argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
   unreasonable sentence by failing to adequately explain the reasons for the
   upward variance. Perez failed to object to his sentence on this basis in the
   district court.   Thus, we review for plain error.        See United States v.
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362-64 (5th Cir. 2009). Even if the
   district court had committed a clear or obvious error in failing to adequately
   explain the sentence, Perez has not shown that his substantial rights were
   affected. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show that
   the error affected his substantial rights, Perez must show that the error
   “affected the outcome in the district court.” Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d
   at 364. To do so, he “must demonstrate a probability sufficient to undermine
   confidence in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Since there is no evidence that the district court would have
   imposed a shorter sentence if it had further articulated its reasons for the
   variance, Perez has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. See
   id. at 364-65.
          Second, Perez contends that his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable because it creates an unwarranted disparity between him and
   similarly situated defendants.     Because Perez properly preserved his
   challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, we review for an abuse of
   discretion. See United States v. Burney, 992 F.3d 398, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2021).
   In imposing a non-guidelines sentence, a district court may consider factors
   already taken into account by the Sentencing Guidelines, including a
   defendant’s criminal history. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th
   Cir. 2008). Our review of the record does not reveal that the district court
   gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor or otherwise
   abused its discretion by failing to account for a factor that should have
   received significant weight or committing a clear error of judgment in
   balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Burney, 992 F.3d at 400. Moreover, as

                                         2
Case: 22-50683        Document: 00516692022        Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                    No. 22-50683

   to the extent of the variance, this court has upheld proportionately similar
   upward variances. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441-43
   (5th Cir. 2006).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         3