Court Opinion

ID: 9894550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 00:00:34.611116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:54.242981
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30165         Document: 00516952880             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/01/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                       No. 23-30165                             November 1, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Darrick Collins,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:22-CR-48-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Darrick        Collins    contests     an     above-Guidelines       74-months’
   imprisonment, imposed subsequent to his guilty plea to possession of a
   firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He claims
   procedural error and a substantively unreasonable sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30165      Document: 00516952880           Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                     No. 23-30165

          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
   novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The claimed procedural error is that the court improperly relied on an
   unsupported factual assumption: he possessed a firearm while outside his ex-
   girlfriend’s house. Assuming Collins preserved this contention, it fails
   because he does not succeed under the above-described clear-error standard
   of review. “There is no clear error if the district court’s finding is plausible
   in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Alfaro, 30 F.4th 514, 518
   (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Stated differently, to qualify as clearly
   erroneous, the district court’s finding “must strike us as more than just
   maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike us as wrong with the force of a
   five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish”. United States v. Hernandez, 48
   F.4th 367, 373 (5th Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
          The court did not clearly err in finding Collins had the firearm with
   him outside his ex-girlfriend’s house. First, it is plausible Collins had the
   firearm and fired it at his ex-girlfriend’s house, based on his prison telephone
   call. Second, the presentence investigation report noted Collins knocked and
   banged on the doors and windows of his ex-girlfriend’s house, threatening to
   kill her. It is plausible he had the means to do so. Third, officers observed
   Collins exit his vehicle carrying a firearm at his apartment complex after
   leaving that house.

                                           2
Case: 23-30165      Document: 00516952880           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                     No. 23-30165

          Collins’ substantive-reasonableness challenge is, as described above,
   reviewed for abuse of discretion. He contends: the court relied on the
   unsupported assumption he possessed the firearm when he went to his ex-
   girlfriend’s house; its reasons for the upward variance were already
   accounted for in the Guidelines; and it improperly weighed the sentencing
   factors.
          When reviewing substantive reasonableness, our court considers “the
   totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
   Guidelines range”. United States v. Churchwell, 807 F.3d 107, 123 (5th Cir.
   2015). We, however, “must give due deference to the district court’s
   decision that the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [sentencing] factors, as a whole, justify
   the extent of the variance”. Id. 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) (citation omitted).
          Collins’ assertion the court erred in finding he possessed the firearm
   when he was at his girlfriend’s house fails, as discussed supra. Re-stated, the
   court properly took that factor into account under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)
   (requiring sentencing courts to consider “the nature and circumstances of
   the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”).
          Collins’ assertion the court incorrectly relied on factors already
   accounted for in the sentencing range is meritless. United States v. Williams,
   517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court’s decision in Booker
   implicitly rejected the position that no additional weight could be given to
   factors included in calculating the applicable advisory Guidelines range, since
   to do otherwise would essentially render the Guidelines mandatory.”
   (footnote omitted)).

                                          3
Case: 23-30165       Document: 00516952880         Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/01/2023

                                    No. 23-30165

            Finally, concerning the claim the court improperly weighed the 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and as the court noted, Collins’ criminal
   history includes convictions for disturbing the peace by fistic encounter,
   carrying a concealed weapon as a convicted felon, and attempted second
   degree murder. In this case, Collins threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend and
   then, following his arrest, he attempted to, or did, call her approximately 85
   times.
            These are all permissible factors for consideration under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a). He essentially asks our court to “reweigh the [Guidelines]
   sentencing factors and substitute our judgment for that of the district court,
   which we will not do”. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th
   Cir. 2017).
            AFFIRMED.

                                         4