Court Opinion

ID: 9408250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 00:00:37.029537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.919485
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60599        Document: 00516817072             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                            July 11, 2023
                                      No. 22-60599
                                    Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jasper Michael Wagner,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 1:22-CR-70-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jasper Michael Wagner pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court sentenced Wagner to the
   statutory maximum sentence of 240 months in prison, which was above the
   advisory guidelines range of 151 to 188 months of imprisonment. On appeal,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60599      Document: 00516817072          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                    No. 22-60599

   Wagner asserts that the district court imposed a procedurally and
   substantively unreasonable sentence and violated the Sixth Amendment.
          First, Wagner argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
   unreasonable sentence by both failing to adequately articulate its reasons for
   imposing an above-guidelines sentence and improperly relying on judge-
   found facts. Because Wagner did not object to his sentence on these bases,
   we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d
   357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
          To ensure that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, the district
   court is required to articulate the specific reasons for imposing an above-
   guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
   stated reasons should be “fact-specific and consistent with the sentencing
   factors enumerated in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” United States v. Smith, 440
   F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). The record demonstrates that the district
   court adequately articulated its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors before
   imposing the above-guidelines sentence. See id. at 707-08.
          Next, a sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court
   imposed the sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
   51. The district court must “determine its factual findings at sentencing by
   a preponderance of the relevant and sufficiently reliable evidence.” United
   States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); see United States v. Mares,
   402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err by inferring
   from the presentence report (PSR) that bank employees were traumatized by
   Wagner’s many bank robberies because the underlying facts were established
   by a preponderance of the evidence and had sufficient indicia of reliability.
   See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. Based on the foregoing, the sentence was
   procedurally reasonable, and Wagner has shown no error, plain or otherwise.
   See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361.

                                              2
Case: 22-60599      Document: 00516817072          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                    No. 22-60599

          Second, Wagner contends that his sentence was substantively
   unreasonable because the district court did not properly weigh the § 3553(a)
   factors. Because this challenge was preserved, we review for abuse of
   discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Before imposing the sentence, the
   district court evaluated the facts and criminal history set forth in the PSR,
   reviewed the written arguments of the Government and defense counsel,
   considered the letter of support from Wagner’s sister, listened to Wagner’s
   in-court apology and stated intentions during incarceration, heard arguments
   from counsel, and confirmed that it had considered the sentencing factors in
   § 3553(a). There is no indication that an important factor was overlooked,
   that an improper factor was given significant weight, or that the imposed
   sentence suggests a clear error of judgment in the court’s balancing of the
   factors. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. We will not reweigh the sentencing
   factors and substitute our judgment for that of the district court, as Wagner
   requests. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Finally, Wagner asserts that the district court’s consideration of
   judge-found facts violated the Sixth Amendment.           We have explicitly
   “foreclosed as-applied Sixth Amendment challenges to sentences within the
   statutory maximum that are reasonable only if based on judge-found facts.”
   United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). As previously
   discussed, the district court’s inference that bank employees were
   traumatized by Wagner’s many bank robberies was supported by a
   preponderance of the evidence. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. Moreover,
   Wagner was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months of
   imprisonment. See § 2113(a). Accordingly, the district court was entitled to
   engage in judicial fact-finding, no constitutional violation occurred, and there
   was no error, plain or otherwise. See Hernandez, 633 F.3d at 374.
          AFFIRMED.

                                              3