Court Opinion

ID: 9434880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:00:33.284973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:55.122426
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40691         Document: 00516843609             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                        August 2, 2023
                                       No. 22-40691
                                     Summary Calendar                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Julio Cesar Loyde, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CR-642-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Julio Cesar Loyde, Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of possession with
   intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was sentenced to
   a 216-month term of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised
   release.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40691      Document: 00516843609          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 22-40691

          Loyde argues on appeal that the sentence imposed is procedurally and
   substantively unreasonable because the district court sentenced him based on
   the actual methamphetamine Guidelines, rather than those applicable to a
   methamphetamine mixture. He maintains that his sentence is procedurally
   unreasonable because the district court failed to recognize that it could
   diverge from the Guidelines when considering his purity argument. Loyde
   also urges that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because by failing
   to vary from the methamphetamine Guidelines, the district court imposed a
   sentence that was greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals
   of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), creating unwarranted sentencing disparities amongst
   similarly situated defendants.
          In setting a sentence, the district court has the discretion to vary from
   the Guidelines for several reasons, including “solely upon policy
   disagreement.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 338 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007)). While a district
   court is not required to vary under Kimbrough, “every defendant is entitled
   to be sentenced by a judge who knows that [he] could vary under Kimbrough
   if [he] was so inclined.” Malone, 828 F.3d at 339. A district court’s failure
   to recognize that it has such discretion constitutes procedural error that is
   subject to harmless error review. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599,
   601 (5th Cir. 2014).
          The district court considered and rejected Loyde’s argument for a
   downward variance based on a policy disagreement with the treatment of
   methamphetamine in the Sentencing Guidelines. There is no indication that
   the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory or did not know it could
   vary based on policy disagreements; rather, it opted to apply the current
   guidelines framework. See Malone, 828 F.3d at 339-40; United States v. Burns,
   526 F.3d 852, 561-62 (5th Cir. 2008). Because Loyde has not demonstrated
   that the district court procedurally erred, we next consider the substantive

                                             2
Case: 22-40691      Document: 00516843609          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 22-40691

   reasonableness of his sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See
   Robinson, 741 F.3d at 598.
          Sentences within or below the guidelines range are presumed to be
   reasonable, and Kimbrough does not disturb that presumption. United States
   v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th
   459, 485 (5th Cir.) (citing United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
   366-67 (5th Cir. 2009)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022). “The district
   court is better situated to weigh the Guidelines’ policy considerations as
   applied to a particular defendant, and [this court’s] deference to the exercise
   of that discretion, backed up by the Commission’s deliberations, is proper.”
   Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 366-67.
          The presumption of reasonableness “is rebutted only upon a showing
   that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant
   weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it
   represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United
   States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Loyde has not made such
   a showing.
          For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             3