Court Opinion

ID: 9966318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:38.559885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.686239
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30665            Document: 52-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                               May 6, 2024
                                   No. 23-30665
                                 Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                     Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Eric Martin,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 6:23-CR-21-1
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Eric Martin pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (outlining unlawful
conduct), (b)(1)(A) (setting penalty).             He challenges the substantive
reasonableness       of   his   within-Guidelines        274-months’-imprisonment
sentence.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30665        Document: 52-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                  No. 23-30665

       Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
       A sentence imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines
sentencing range, as in this instance, is entitled to a rebuttable presumption
of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir.
2020). Defendant can rebut this presumption by showing “the sentence does
not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors”. Id. (citation omitted).
       Martin fails to rebut the presumption. At sentencing, the district
court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, adopted the
presentence investigation report, confirmed it reviewed Martin’s sentencing
memorandum, and listened to his contentions for receiving a lower sentence.
Martin’s “claim amounts to a request that we reweigh the sentencing factors
and substitute our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not
do”. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
       AFFIRMED.

                                        2