Court Opinion

ID: 9928067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 19:00:37.889744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:47:57.429464
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50269        Document: 00517049094             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/30/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50269
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               January 30, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Keith Lutrell Corona,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:22-CR-74-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Keith Lutrell Corona pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
   distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing
   methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). He was subject to
   the career offender enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(1), and received a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50269      Document: 00517049094          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                    No. 23-50269

   within-guidelines sentence of 300 months of imprisonment and five years of
   supervised release.
          For the first time on appeal, Corona complains that the district court
   failed to explain its denial of his request for a sentence below the guidelines
   range. Because he did not raise the argument first in the district court, we
   review for plain error. See United States v. Peterson, 977 F.3d 381, 392 (5th
   Cir. 2020). The district court denied Corona’s request for a downward
   variance stating that he was undeserving because of his criminal conduct
   while on supervised release. Corona has not shown that the district court’s
   explanation here for denying his variance request and imposing a within
   guidelines sentence was a clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.
   2005) (holding that “little explanation is required” when a sentence is within
   the guidelines range).
          In addition, Corona challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
   sentence, which we review under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
   United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Specifically, he argues the lengthy
   sentence imposed after application of career offender enhancement in his
   case is contrary to the Sentencing Reform Act, which the district court
   should have recognized, and that the district court clearly erred in balancing
   the sentencing factors.
          A sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is
   entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v.
   Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). A defendant may rebut the
   presumption of reasonableness “by showing that the sentence does not
   account for factors that should receive significant weight, gives significant
   weight to irrelevant or improper factors, or represents a clear error of
   judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id.

                                         2
Case: 23-50269     Document: 00517049094           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                    No. 23-50269

          Corona presented his arguments against a sentence enhanced by the
   career offender provision in his objections to the presentence report. At
   sentencing, the district court heard Corona’s request for a lower sentence
   and considered Corona’s character, his medical issues, his age, and
   additional arguments about the career offender enhancement. The district
   court rejected Corona’s request for a lower sentence and stated that even
   without the career offender enhancement, it would have imposed the same
   sentence in light of the sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, in
   light of the record and the deferential standard of review, Corona has failed
   to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Rashad, 687 F.3d at 644.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3