Court Opinion

ID: 9404635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 18:00:30.248846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.964150
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20022         Document: 00516797851             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/23/2023

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

                                       No. 23-20022
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                      June 23, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Izaiah Guzman,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-102-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Izaiah Guzman was convicted of one charge of possession of a
   machine gun and was sentenced to serve an above-guidelines term of 60
   months in prison as well as a three-year term of supervised release. He
   challenges his prison sentence in this appeal, arguing that it is procedurally
   and substantively unreasonable.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20022      Document: 00516797851             Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/23/2023

                                    No. 23-20022

          In general, sentences are reviewed for reasonableness by engaging in a
   bifurcated review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, this
   court must ensure that the sentencing court committed no significant
   procedural error. Id. A procedural error occurs when, inter alia, the district
   court “fail[s] to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors,” which include
   the history and characteristics of the defendant. Id.; see § 3553(a)(1). If the
   district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, this court should
   then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S.
   at 51. An above-guidelines sentence, such as Guzman’s, 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. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Guzman shows no procedural error in connection with his sentence.
   See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Insofar as he argues that the district court failed to
   consider his history and characteristics, specifically his rough childhood, the
   record refutes this contention. Likewise unavailing is Guzman’s argument
   that the district court erred by basing his sentence on his criminal history
   when this factor was already accounted for in the guidelines, as this court has
   held that a defendant’s criminal history, including juvenile offenses, may
   support a non-Guidelines sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 709. Finally,
   Guzman’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
   the district court did not account for certain factors fails because it reflects
   no more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the
   pertinent   factors,   which   does    not       suffice   to   show   substantive
   unreasonableness.      See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708.              The judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                                2