Court Opinion

ID: 9931462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 01:00:38.877596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:51.046352
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60271        Document: 00517060734             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

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

                                      No. 23-60271                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                           February 8, 2024
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Shredewrick Davon Anderson, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-99-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Shredewrick Davon Anderson, Jr. appeals the imposition of his above-
   guidelines sentence. Because the sentence is not substantively unreasonable,
   we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60271       Document: 00517060734            Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                       No. 23-60271

                                             I.
           On March 24, 2022, Jackson Police Department officers were on pa-
   trol when they noticed a vehicle’s windows were too darkly tinted. The of-
   ficers stopped the vehicle and asked the driver and passengers to identify
   themselves, including Anderson, the defendant in this case. The officers
   then observed a Glock 23 .40 caliber pistol under passenger Anderson’s feet.
   Anderson was removed from the vehicle and advised of his Miranda rights.
   He then acknowledged that he was a convicted felon and was arrested.
           A grand jury returned a single-count indictment charging Anderson
   with illegally possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Anderson subsequently pled guilty pur-
   suant to a plea agreement that reserved Anderson’s right to appeal his sen-
   tence. The district court then ordered a presentence investigation and re-
   port.
           The presentence report (“PSR”) calculated Anderson’s imprison-
   ment range based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the
   time. According to the PSR, Anderson qualified for an offense level of 12 and
   a criminal history category of V, which suggested an imprisonment range of
   27–33 months. Anderson filed no written objections to the PSR.
           Anderson was sentenced in April 2023. At the sentencing hearing,
   Anderson asked the district judge to apply an amendment to the sentencing
   guidelines that was set to take effect in November 2023 (“Amendment
   821”), 1 which would have lowered Anderson’s range of imprisonment to 21–

           _____________________
           1
             In relevant part, Amendment 821 modified U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 to provide that
   where a defendant has seven or more criminal history points, only one point should be
   added if the instance offense was committed while “under any criminal justice sentence,
   including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape
   status.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). Based on the calculations, Anderson would have received a

                                             2
Case: 23-60271        Document: 00517060734             Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                         No. 23-60271

   27 months. The district judge denied Anderson’s request. Instead, after
   considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district judge im-
   posed an above-guidelines sentence of 60 months imprisonment. Anderson
   appeals this sentence.
                                              II.
           On appeal, Anderson contends that his sentence is substantively un-
   reasonable for two reasons: first, the district court incorrectly applied an up-
   ward variance rather than sentencing him according to the sentencing guide-
   lines provisions, and second, the district court erred by not applying Amend-
   ment 821.
           We turn first to Anderson’s contention that the district court erred by
   applying an upward variance to his sentence. Because Anderson requested a
   lesser sentence in the district court, he preserved his substantive reasonable-
   ness challenge, and we will therefore review for an abuse of discretion. See
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020). Our re-
   view of a sentence for substantive reasonableness is “highly deferential, be-
   cause the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their
   import under the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
   defendant.” United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).                A sentence is substantively

           _____________________
   lower score if sentenced based on Amendment 821. This amendment, however, only
   became effective after Anderson was sentenced. The United States Sentencing
   Commission has since permitted Amendment 821 to be applied retroactively. Thus,
   inmates who are currently serving prison sentences affected by this amendment are eligible
   to apply for resentencing under the new guideline range. United States Sentencing
   Commission Office of Public Affairs, Materials Related to the 2023 Criminal History
   Amendment,          UNITED           STATES           SENTENCING          COMMISSION,
   https://www.ussc.gov/policymaking/materials-relating-2023-criminal-history-
   amendment.

                                               3
Case: 23-60271      Document: 00517060734           Page: 4     Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                     No. 23-60271

   unreasonable if it fails to reflect the § 3553(a) factors; that is, if it does not
   account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gives signif-
   icant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. Id.
          Anderson’s contention that the district court improperly applied an
   upward variance is meritless because the district court correctly relied on the
   § 3553(a) factors to determine that an upward variance was warranted. See
   Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–50 (2007) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
   The court’s reasons properly addressed Anderson’s criminal history and
   characteristics and the needs to deter Anderson from future criminal conduct
   and to protect the public. To the point, nothing in the record suggests that
   the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received signifi-
   cant weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. Consequently, we de-
   fer to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors, on the
   whole, warrant the variance and justify the extent of the upward variance im-
   posed. See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir.
   2012); United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012).
          We next turn to Anderson’s argument that he is entitled to the bene-
   fits of Amendment 821. The district courts are routinely required to apply
   the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, absent concerns of an ex
   post facto violation. See United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316, 322
   (5th Cir. 2007). Certainly, district courts are not required to grant a variance
   based simply on pending amendments to the guidelines; rather, they may
   vary downward as a matter of discretion. See United States v. Douglas, 957
   F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020). At the time Anderson was sentenced, Amend-
   ment 821 was not applicable to Anderson because Anderson was sentenced
   before the amendment took effect. Nevertheless, the district court heard ex-
   tensive arguments regarding Amendment 821’s applicability from Anderson,

                                           4
Case: 23-60271     Document: 00517060734           Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/08/2024

                                    No. 23-60271

   the U.S. Probation Officer, and the Government. But after considering these
   arguments, the district court determined that Anderson should still receive a
   60-month sentence notwithstanding Amendment 821. The district court
   weighed the § 3553(a) factors—Anderson’s extensive criminal history, the
   need to deter Anderson from future criminal conduct, and the need to protect
   the public—to determine that an upward variance, rather than a downward
   variance, was proper under the circumstances. In short, the district court did
   not abuse its discretion by deciding not to apply Amendment 821 when sen-
   tencing Anderson.
                                        III.
          Because Anderson has not shown that the district court committed
   error by sentencing him above the suggested guideline range, its judgment is,
   accordingly,
                                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                         5