Court Opinion

ID: 9965884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 18:00:37.315789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:50.038154
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60484            Document: 46-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2024

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

                                    No. 23-60484
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                              May 3, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar
                                  ____________                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Robert Taylor,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Mississippi
                            USDC No. 1:22-CR-115-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Robert Taylor pleaded guilty, with a plea agreement, to interstate
transportation of a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct. The district court sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment,
five years of supervised release, and $7000 in restitution. Taylor appeals his
sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness in view of the 18 U.S.C.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60484        Document: 46-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/03/2024

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
We first determine whether the district court committed any significant
procedural error. Id. at 51. Then, if necessary, we “proceed to the second
step and review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed for
an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir.
2012).
         Taylor argues that the sentence was procedurally flawed because the
district court failed to provide an adequate explanation. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
51. Taylor concedes that our review is for plain error. See United States v.
Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court
“should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered
the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
The district court considered Taylor’s arguments for a downward variance,
rejected them, and had a reasoned basis for exercising its authority. See id.
         Next, Taylor argues the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence because it denied his motion for a downward variance. We review
the denial of a downward variance for abuse of discretion and recognize that
a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020). To
rebut the presumption, a defendant 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. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Taylor has not made this showing.
         AFFIRMED.