Court Opinion

ID: 9352395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 01:00:20.068907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:27.415679
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30386        Document: 00516599408             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30386
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 5, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Darrien D. Johnson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 5:21-CR-233-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Darrien D. Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and
   ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was
   sentenced to, inter alia, an above-Sentencing Guidelines, statutory
   maximum, 120-months’ imprisonment.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30386      Document: 00516599408           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                     No. 22-30386

          Johnson contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court
   failed to clarify whether the sentence imposed was a Guidelines-authorized
   upward-departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, or an upward variance
   under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Even assuming this issue was not waived, the
   record establishes the sentence was the result of an upward variance under
   § 3553(a). Therefore, our court will not address Johnson’s assertion the
   court procedurally erred in failing to articulate reasons for rejecting
   intermediate sentences pursuant to § 4A1.3.
          Additionally, Johnson maintains his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. He asserts: a within-Guidelines sentence was sufficient to
   achieve the sentencing goals of § 3553(a); and the court failed to give
   appropriate weight to the Guidelines before varying upwardly to the statutory
   maximum.       According to Johnson, the Guidelines range adequately
   accounted for his criminal history, and nothing in the record supports the
   imposition of the statutory-maximum term.
          Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
   court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
   the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
   (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
   an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
   abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
   564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in
   district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual
   findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
   F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The record shows the court considered the advisory Guidelines
   sentencing range of 57 to 71 months, but found it to be inadequate, concluding
   a variance was warranted under the § 3553(a) sentencing factors to address

                                           2
Case: 22-30386      Document: 00516599408           Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/05/2023

                                     No. 22-30386

   the severity of Johnson’s criminal past.          The court emphasized the
   extensiveness of his criminal history, the serious, repetitive, and often violent
   nature of his offenses, and his inability to refrain from criminal conduct while
   under court-ordered supervision. E.g., United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d
   347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining court may consider factors incorporated
   by Guidelines, including criminal history, in concluding upward variance
   appropriate); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008)
   (“The Supreme Court's decision in Booker implicitly rejected the position
   that no additional weight could be given to factors included in calculating the
   applicable advisory Guidelines range, since to do otherwise would essentially
   render the Guidelines mandatory.”); see also § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2).
          The district court provided a reasoned basis for imposing the
   maximum sentence, and our court will defer to that determination. E.g., Gall,
   552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (“Even a significant variance from the Guidelines does not constitute an
   abuse of discretion if it is commensurate with the individualized, case-
   specific reasons provided by the district court.” (citation omitted)).
   Moreover, our court has routinely upheld similarly extensive variances. E.g.,
   United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 705–06 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding as
   substantively reasonable 60-months’ sentence where maximum sentence
   under Guidelines was 27 months); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433,
   440–42 (5th Cir. 2006) (same for 120-months’ sentence where maximum
   sentence under Guidelines was 57 months).
          Inasmuch as Johnson seeks to have our court reweigh the § 3553(a)
   sentencing factors, we will not do so. United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413,
   435 (5th Cir. 2013) (declining to reweigh § 3553(a) sentencing factors on
   substantive-reasonableness review).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3