Court Opinion

ID: 9352489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 19:00:23.765871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:37.504811
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20302         Document: 00516600575             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023

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

                                       No. 22-20302
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 January 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Tarek Keionte Sonnier,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-594-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Tarek Sonnier appeals his 24-month sentence for stealing or repro-
   ducing post office keys and for theft of mail. Although the advisory guidelines
   range was 8 to 14 months of imprisonment, the district court applied an
   upward variance to 24 months. Sonnier challenges the procedural and sub-
   stantive reasonableness of his sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20302      Document: 00516600575           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                     No. 22-20302

          First, Sonnier contends that the district court imposed a procedurally
   unreasonable sentence by failing adequately to explain the reasons for the
   upward variance. Sonnier failed to object to his sentence on this basis in the
   district court, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-
   Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362–64 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Even if the court had committed a clear or obvious error in failing
   adequately to explain, Sonnier has not shown that his substantial rights were
   affected. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show that
   the error affected his substantial rights, Sonnier must establish that it
   “affected the outcome in the district court.” Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d
   at 364. To do so, he “must demonstrate a probability sufficient to undermine
   confidence in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omit-
   ted). Because there is no indication that the court would have imposed a
   shorter sentence if it had sufficiently articulated its reasons for the variance,
   Sonnier has not shown that his substantial rights were affected. See id.
   at 364–65.
          Second, Sonnier maintains that the sentence is substantively unrea-
   sonable because he disagrees with the district court’s weighing of the sen-
   tencing factors. Because Sonnier properly preserved his challenge to reason-
   ableness, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burney,
   992 F.3d 398, 399–400 (5th Cir. 2021). In imposing a non-guidelines sen-
   tence, a district court may consider factors already taken into account by the
   Sentencing Guidelines, including criminal history. United States v. Brantley,
   537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record does not reveal
   that the district court gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper
   factor or otherwise abused its discretion by failing to account for a factor that
   should have received significant weight or by committing a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Burney, 992 F.3d at 400.
   Moreover, as to the extent of the departure, this court has upheld propor-

                                          2
Case: 22-20302     Document: 00516600575         Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                  No. 22-20302

   tionately similar and greater upward variances. See United States v. Jones,
   444 F.3d 430, 433, 441–43 (5th Cir. 2006).
         Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                        3