Court Opinion

ID: 9404634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 18:00:29.726671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.969604
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60627         Document: 00516797518             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/23/2023

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

                                       No. 22-60627                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                              June 23, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Javon Montreal King,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 1:21-CR-101-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Javon Montreal King appeals the 120-month within-guidelines
   sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in
   possession of a firearm. King argues that his 120-month sentence is greater
   than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
   Where, as here, the district court issues a sentence that is within a properly

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60627      Document: 00516797518           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/23/2023

                                     No. 22-60627

   calculated guidelines range, a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
   applies. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To
   rebut this presumption, King must show “that 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. As King did not preserve such a
   challenge, we review the district court’s decision for plain error only. Cf.
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). However,
   even under the ordinary standard, King has not demonstrated that his
   sentence is unreasonable.
          After considering the parties’ arguments, the presentence report
   (PSR) and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court determined that
   the statutory maximum, which was coextensive with the guidelines range,
   was appropriate based on the seriousness of the present offense, King’s lack
   of respect for the law, his danger to the community, the need to assure the
   community that the court takes these offenses seriously, and the possibility
   that the system had not sufficiently rehabilitated him. Although King now
   asserts that the court failed sufficiently to consider his untreated ADHD,
   other potential mental health issues, drug addiction and educational history
   as mitigating factors, given the minimal information provided the district
   court about these matters, he has not shown that the court failed to give them
   sufficient weight. To the contrary, the record reflects that the court reviewed
   the PSR and was aware of King’s history, including his mental health and
   drug abuse issues. King’s disagreement with the weighing of the § 3553(a)
   factors and his sentence is insufficient to establish the district court erred in
   balancing them. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2