Court Opinion

ID: 9379668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 00:00:23.02151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.399128
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10431        Document: 00516677742             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10431
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                March 15, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Andrew Berger,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-479-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Andrew Berger pled guilty to conspiracy to acquire firearms
   fraudulently. The district court sentenced Berger to the statutory maximum
   of 60 months. On appeal, Berger argues his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10431        Document: 00516677742           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                       No. 22-10431

             During sentencing, the district court must “impose a sentence
   sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to accomplish the goals of
   sentencing, including to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
   respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford
   adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from
   further crimes of the defendant.” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85,
   101 (2007) (quotations marks omitted) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The
   district court must begin its analysis by reviewing the advisory United States
   Sentencing Guidelines. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).
             Berger contests the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. This
   court reviews “an appellant’s claim that [a] sentence is substantively
   unreasonable for abuse of discretion. This review is highly deferential,
   because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge
   their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
   defendant.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (quotation marks and citations omitted). The court may, in its discretion,
   vary above or below the Guidelines range if it stays within the statutory
   sentencing range and fully considers the Section 3553(a) factors. See United
   States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline
   sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where
   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.” Id.
   at 708.
             First, Berger argues that the district court did not adequately account
   for his age, upbringing, lack of criminal history, and mental health. The
   district court did, however, consider all of these things, in part based on
   Berger’s own testimony and admissions. Specifically, the court weighed his
   mental health and youth against the significant threat to the public his

                                            2
Case: 22-10431        Document: 00516677742         Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                     No. 22-10431

   repeated conduct posed and the need to deter others from engaging in similar
   conduct. Thus, we defer to the district court’s findings and weighing of the
   factors. See id.
            Second, Berger argues that there is an unreasonably and inexplicably
   broad disparity between his sentence and his co-conspirators’ sentences.
   “However, this disparity factor requires the district court to avoid only
   unwarranted disparities between similarly situated defendants nationwide,
   and it does not require the district court to avoid sentencing disparities
   between co-defendants who might not be similarly situated.” United States
   v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010). In explaining its
   sentence, the district court pointed to: Berger’s involvement in two
   shootings; the presence of a firearm he sold at the site of another shooting;
   Berger’s role as the organizer and leader of the conspiracy; and Berger’s
   repeated illegal purchases of firearms. These factors do not apply to his co-
   defendants. Thus, Berger has not shown that his greater sentence created an
   unwarranted disparity. See United States v. Ives, 984 F.2d 649, 650 (5th Cir.
   1993).
            AFFIRMED.

                                          3