Court Opinion

ID: 9961159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 00:01:05.705615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:21.206559
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30574            Document: 51-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

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

                                                                                   FILED
                                    No. 23-30574                              April 17, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________
                                                                                  Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Demetrius Jerone Davis,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 6:22-CR-106-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Demetrius Jerone Davis appeals the 120-month, within-guidelines
range sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to possession of a stolen firearm,
contending that the district court committed plain procedural error by failing
to adequately explain the sentence. Specifically, Davis asserts that the
district court failed to address his nonfrivolous arguments for a below-

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30574        Document: 51-1      Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/17/2024

guidelines range sentence, which were based on his intellectual disability, his
compliant behavior during arrest and while on pretrial release, his support
system, and his age. Because Davis did not object in the district court to the
adequacy of the sentence explanation, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show
plain error, Davis must identify a forfeited error that is clear or obvious,
rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and that affects his substantial
rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
       “The sentencing court must adequately explain the chosen sentence
to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.” United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The sentencing judge
should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.”      Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “[L]ittle explanation is required” when the judge simply imposes
a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range. United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).          “Where the defendant or
prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence,
however, the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected
those arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007).
       At sentencing, the district court adopted the unobjected-to
presentence report recommending a 120-month sentence; noted that it had
reviewed Davis’s sentencing memorandum, letters from his sister and
pastor, and a Bureau of Prisons psychological evaluation report on which
Davis’s departure argument was largely based; listened to Davis’s and his
counsel’s arguments for mitigation, which mirrored the arguments in the
sentencing    memorandum;        and    listened    to   the      Government’s
counterarguments for a within-guidelines range sentence.            The court
Case: 23-30574       Document: 51-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/17/2024

explained that Davis’s sentence was based on its findings of fact, the nature
and circumstances of the offense, Davis’s personal characteristics, and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, all of which it found to support a sentence within
the guidelines range. Although the court did not expressly address Davis’s
arguments for a downward departure, its explanation was legally sufficient as
it satisfies us that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned
basis for imposing the sentence it did. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714
F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013). The court’s explanation of Davis’s sentence
was thus not clearly or obviously inadequate. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
       Even were the district court’s sentence explanation plainly
inadequate, Davis would not be entitled to vacatur on plain error review. We
have long rejected the argument that a court’s failure to explain a within-
guidelines range sentence affects a defendant’s substantial rights.        See
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 365.
       For these reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.