Court Opinion

ID: 9407972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 00:00:30.545126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.018976
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11217         Document: 00516814755             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11217
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Andrea Lamont Medlock,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-368-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andrea Lamont Medlock appeals the 24-month within-guidelines
   prison sentence he received for violating the terms of his supervised release.
   Medlock argues that the revocation of his supervised release and 24-month
   statutory maximum sentence is plainly unreasonable because the facts of the
   case do not warrant this level of severity. When a defendant properly

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11217       Document: 00516814755          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                     No. 22-11217

   preserves an objection for appeal, revocation sentences are reviewed under a
   “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326
   (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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.” Id.
            The record indicates the district court employed an individualized,
   reasoned, and fact-specific analysis consistent with the permissible § 3553 (a)
   factors. Warren, 720 F.3d at 332-33. Specifically, the district court addressed
   Medlock’s history and characteristics and found that deterring criminal
   conduct while protecting the public from Medlock was the dominant,
   overriding factor, considering the evidence that Medlock committed an
   assault. Medlock fails to show the court’s weighing of these factors was
   plainly unreasonable. In addition, although Medlock contends that he was
   entitled to consideration for acceptance of responsibility because he pleaded
   true to some of the violations, the district court did not err by declining to
   consider what amounts to a disagreement with the policy of the Guidelines.
   See, e.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.
   2009).
            AFFIRMED.

                                          2