Court Opinion

ID: 9401091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 00:00:56.318319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.585773
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10785        Document: 00516781709             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10785
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     June 9, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jeremiah Pena Chavarria,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-60-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jeremiah Pena Chavarria appeals his 84-month sentence for
   possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The sentence represents a 27-month upward
   variance from the guidelines range based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
   particularly the need to protect the public from further crimes. Chavarria

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10785      Document: 00516781709           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                     No. 22-10785

   argues that his non-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable
   because it fails to account for factors—his traumatic childhood, his history of
   drug addiction and mental health issues, and his successful work as a
   subcontractor—that should have received significant weight.
          We review sentences, whether inside or outside the guidelines range,
   for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) and
   review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
   under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
   U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When, as in this case, the district court imposes a non-
   guidelines sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including
   the extent of any variance from the guidelines range, to determine whether
   the § 3553(a) factors support the sentence. See United States v. Broussard,
   669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012).
          In this case, the district court’s reasons for imposing an upward
   variance were thoughtful and individualized. After thoroughly discussing
   relevant sentencing factors, including Chavarria’s personal history and
   criminal history, the district court concluded that a sentence of 84 months
   was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to protect the public from
   further crimes and provide adequate deterrence given Chavarria’s long
   history of engaging in dangerous conduct. That the district court gave greater
   weight to those factors than to the mitigating factors, which the court
   expressly considered, does not represent a clear error of judgment, and we
   will not reweigh the balancing of those sentencing factors. See Gall, 552 U.S.
   at 51. Chavarria’s disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the
   § 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v.
   Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Further, although Chavarria does
   not raise any argument regarding the extent of the upward variance, the
   totality of the circumstances, including the extent of the variance and the
   § 3553(a) factors identified by the district court, particularly the need for the

                                              2
Case: 22-10785      Document: 00516781709           Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                     No. 22-10785

   sentence to protect the public in light of Chavarria’s lengthy and violent
   criminal history, support the imposition of the upward variance in this case.
   See id.; Broussard, 669 F.3d at 551.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              3