Court Opinion

ID: 9411021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 17:13:31.743804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.319587
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50749        Document: 00516832568             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/25/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-50749                                   July 25, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Kyle Vaughn,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-61-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Kyle Vaughn pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess
   with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine after
   a prior conviction for a serious violent felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
   §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), 841(a)(1), and 851, and to possession of a firearm in
   furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50749      Document: 00516832568          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/25/2023

                                    No. 22-50749

   The district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment for the drug
   conspiracy conviction and a consecutive 60-month term of imprisonment for
   the § 924(c) conviction. On appeal, he contends that his within-guidelines
   sentence was substantively unreasonable.
          We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
   discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence imposed
   within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
   United States v. Neba, 901 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2018). Before imposing a
   within-guidelines sentence, the district court considered the advisory
   guidelines range, Vaughn’s arguments for a sentence at the bottom of the
   guidelines range, and the § 3553(a) factors. While Vaughn contends that the
   sentence was greater than necessary and did not adequately take into account
   his history and circumstances, he has failed to demonstrate “that the district
   court did not consider a sentencing factor that should have received
   significant weight, gave significant weight to a factor it should have
   discounted, or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant
   factors.” United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir.
   2020) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-De la Fuente, 842 F.3d 371, 374 (5th
   Cir. 2016)). The district court’s statements at sentencing did not amount to
   an abuse of discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, “an argument
   premised primarily on sentencing disparity is insufficient to render a
   sentence substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d
   370, 379 (5th Cir. 2011).
          Because Vaughn has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness
   that attached to his within-guidelines sentence, he has failed to demonstrate
   that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Neba, 901 F.3d at 263.
   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             2