Court Opinion

ID: 9840526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 00:00:22.684082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:34:09.005573
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10235         Document: 00516898914             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10235
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 18, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Joshua Trace Moody,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:22-CR-63-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Joshua Trace Moody contests the above-Guidelines 48-months’
   imprisonment sentence imposed subsequent to his guilty plea to escaping
   from a halfway house, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (prohibiting escape
   from institution or facility). He maintains the court imposed a substantively-
   unreasonable sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10235      Document: 00516898914           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/18/2023

                                     No. 23-10235

          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 (Moody does not claim
   such error), 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 is substantively unreasonable “if it (1) does not account
   for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant
   weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the sentencing factors”. United States v. Cano, 981
   F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
          Moody fails to demonstrate any abuse of discretion. Id. (discussing
   abuse-of-discretion standard). The court considered Moody’s mitigation
   contentions and the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and relied on
   several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to impose the 48-month
   sentence. In doing so, the court concluded: the sentencing range did not
   reflect the nature of his violent conduct or the seriousness of his criminal
   history; and an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted to reflect the
   seriousness of the offense, afford adequate deterrence, and provide public
   protection. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)–(C).
          Moody’s assertion that the court incorrectly relied on factors already
   accounted for in the sentencing range is meritless. See United States v.
   Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court’s decision

                                          2
Case: 23-10235      Document: 00516898914           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/18/2023

                                     No. 23-10235

   in Booker implicitly rejected the position that no additional weight could be
   given to factors included in calculating the applicable advisory Guidelines
   range, since to do otherwise would essentially render the Guidelines
   mandatory.” (footnote omitted)). He essentially asks our court to reweigh
   the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and substitute our judgment on
   appeal, which our court will not do. See Gall, 552 U. S. at 51; United States v.
   Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013) (declining to reweigh the § 3553(a)
   sentencing factors on substantive-reasonableness review).
          Similarly, his assertion a 24-month upward variance was excessive as
   a matter of law is unavailing because our court has upheld more significant
   variances. E.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475–76 (5th Cir. 2010)
   (upholding 216-month sentence where maximum Guidelines sentencing
   range was 57 months); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 348–50
   (upholding variance to concurrent terms of 120 months and 180 months from
   Guidelines sentencing range of 41 to 51 months); United States v. Jones, 444
   F.3d 430, 433, 441–42 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming upward variance of 120
   months from Guidelines sentencing range of 46 to 57 months).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3