Court Opinion

ID: 9411814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 00:01:05.52985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:14.388313
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50926        Document: 00516836903             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50926
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 27, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   James Dale Bradford,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:22-CR-76-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant James Dale Bradford pleaded guilty to
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
   methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(C).
   The district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment and three
   years of supervised release. We affirm.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50926       Document: 00516836903          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                     No. 22-50926

            Bradford asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He
   contends that the district court should have granted a downward variance
   because he was sentenced under the guideline for actual methamphetamine
   instead of methamphetamine mixture. Bradford contends that the disparate
   guidelines for methamphetamine mixture and actual methamphetamine do
   not track relative culpability and are not based on empirical evidence.
   Bradford’s claim is based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
   Kimbrough v. United States, which held that the disparity between the
   guidelines ranges for crack and powder cocaine offenses resulted in an
   excessive sentence. 552 U.S. 85, 109–10 (2007). The Court reasoned that the
   crack cocaine guideline did not reflect the Sentencing Commission’s
   ordinary methods of relying on empirical evidence and national experience.
   Id.
            We review a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
   for abuse of discretion. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir.
   2014). Sentences within or below the guidelines range are presumed to be
   reasonable, and Kimbrough does not disturb that presumption. See United
   States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Lara, 23
   F.4th 459, 485 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022). “The
   district court is better situated to weigh the Guidelines’ policy considerations
   as applied to a particular defendant, and [this court’s] deference to the
   exercise of that discretion, backed up by the Commission’s deliberations, is
   proper.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir.
   2009).
            The presumption of reasonableness “is rebutted only upon a showing
   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.” United

                                              2
Case: 22-50926      Document: 00516836903          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                    No. 22-50926

   States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Bradford has not made such
   a showing. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             3