Court Opinion

ID: 9375320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:44.306977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.665242
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30276        Document: 00516652825             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30276
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                              February 22, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Dustin O. Thompson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 1:18-CR-326-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Dustin O. Thompson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
   one count of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, 21 U.S.C.
   § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and to one count of possession of a firearm in
   furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court
   imposed a within-guidelines total sentence of 270 months of imprisonment
   followed by a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Thompson
          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30276        Document: 00516652825         Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/22/2023

                                     No. 22-30276

   challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and contends that
   his   within-guidelines    sentence    is   procedurally    and    substantively
   unreasonable. Because Thompson’s guilty plea is not a conditional plea and
   there is no evidence suggesting that he intended to enter a conditional plea
   and reserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, this issue
   is waived. See United States v. Olson, 849 F.3d 230, 231 (5th Cir. 2017);
   United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 917-18 (5th Cir. 1992).
          When reviewing sentences, we “first ensure that the district court
   committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
   improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
   mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or failing
   to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States,
   552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). If there is no procedural error, we then “consider
   the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-
   discretion standard.” United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir.
   2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). During both inquiries,
   we review “the sentencing court’s interpretation or application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” Id.
   at 598-99.
          Thompson argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
   because it failed to properly account for the nature and circumstances of the
   offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. To the extent
   that Thompson’s arguments can be construed as the district court failing to
   take the § 3553(a) sentencing factors into account, a review of the record
   reveals this is incorrect as the district court explicitly considered the factors
   and recited them at sentencing. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186
   (5th Cir. 2009).

                                           2
Case: 22-30276       Document: 00516652825           Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/22/2023

                                      No. 22-30276

          Thompson also urges that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
   because it fails to account for certain mitigating factors, including his age, his
   difficult upbringing, and the amount of drugs in his possession, and that it
   was an abuse of discretion for the district court to fail to exercise its discretion
   to vary from the Guidelines. A sentence within a properly calculated
   guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Hernandez,
   876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017). The district court listened to Thompson’s
   arguments in favor of a below-guidelines sentence and stated that it had
   considered all the § 3553(a) factors and Thompson’s “long record” and
   criminal history. Thompson has not shown that the district court considered
   an improper factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or committed a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at
   186.   Moreover, while the district court had the discretion to issue a
   downward variance based on policy disagreements with the Guidelines, it
   was not required to do so. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338-39
   (5th Cir. 2016).     Thompson’s appellate arguments amount to a mere
   disagreement with the weight that the district court afforded to his mitigating
   arguments and his displeasure with the sentence imposed, which is
   insufficient to support his contention that the sentence was unreasonable.
   See United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 2014).
   Accordingly, Thompson has failed to rebut the presumption of
   reasonableness applicable to his within-guidelines sentence and has not
   shown that the district court abused its discretion. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
          For the foregoing reasons, Thompson’s conviction and sentence are
   AFFIRMED.

                                            3