Court Opinion

ID: 9911635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 17:00:46.445322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:10.291786
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6024     Document: 010110971790      Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 1
                                                           FILED
                                               United States Court of Appeals
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS     Tenth Circuit

                           FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                     December 20, 2023
                        _________________________________________
                                                                    Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                        Clerk of Court
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,

     v.                                                    No. 23-6024
                                                  (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00252-R-1)
     RICKY ALLEN QUENTIN TABER,                           (W.D. Okla.)

           Defendant - Appellant.
                        _______________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _______________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                _________________________________

          This appeal involves an 84-month prison term for possessing

 ammunition after conviction for a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

 Mr. Taber argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

          When we review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we

 apply the abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Walker, 844 F.3d

 *
       The parties do not request oral argument, and it would not help us
 decide the appeal. So we have decided the appeal based on the record and
 the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

       This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
 under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
 But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
 otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 23-6024   Document: 010110971790   Date Filed: 12/20/2023    Page: 2

 1253, 1255 (10th Cir. 2017). This is a highly deferential standard; we

 reverse only if the district court’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious,

 whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Barnes, 890 F.3d

 910, 915 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. DeRusse, 859 F.3d

 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 2017)).

       We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion. The

 district court considered the presentence investigation report, the

 sentencing memoranda, the letters of support for Mr. Taber, the sentencing

 guidelines, and the sentencing factors.

       Mr. Taber points to the court’s decision to vary upward from the

 guideline range (51 to 63 months). The district court could reasonably

 regard this range as too low for Mr. Taber for five reasons:

       1.     In the incident that led to his arrest, Mr. Taber shot his
              girlfriend. Although this shooting may have been an accident,
              the court noted that the shooting could have been deadly and
              ultimately required the girlfriend to undergo surgery.

       2.     Mr. Taber shot his girlfriend after he had used
              methamphetamine.

       3.     Mr. Taber had previously shot a gun indoors to scare other
              people.

       4.     Mr. Taber frequently fled from the police, putting others in
              danger. Here he fled after shooting his girlfriend, going 70
              miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone.

       5.     Mr. Taber otherwise had an extensive criminal history.

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-6024   Document: 010110971790   Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 3

       In his reply brief, Mr. Taber asserts that the district court erred by

 lengthening the sentence to facilitate rehabilitation for drug use. See Tapia

 v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). But this assertion involves

 procedural reasonableness, not substantive reasonableness. See United

 States v. Thornton, 846 F.3d 1110, 1112 (10th Cir. 2017). So Mr. Taber

 acknowledges that this reference to drug rehabilitation doesn’t

 independently support reversal.

       He argues instead that we should not consider the value of drug

 rehabilitation as a reason to uphold the sentence. For the sake of argument,

 we won’t consider the reference to drug treatment. Putting this reference

 aside, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

 weighing the pertinent factors as it did.

       Based on this conclusion, we affirm the sentence.

                                     Entered for the Court

                                     Robert E. Bacharach
                                     Circuit Judge

                                        3