Court Opinion

ID: 9401784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 00:00:28.226192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.244644
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10599        Document: 00516785146             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                      No. 22-10599                                   June 13, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Ronald Eugene Jones,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:21-CR-72-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ronald Eugene Jones pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
   one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
   violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to a 151-
   month term of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.
   Jones argues on appeal that the district court erred in not departing

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10599       Document: 00516785146         Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                    No. 22-10599

   downward under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 or granting a variance based on his
   physical impairments and numerous medical conditions and that his sentence
   is greater than necessary to effectuate the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a).
            This court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the district court
   erred in denying Jones a downward departure based on his physical
   impairments. See United States v. Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2018).
   We may review the denial of a downward departure only if the district court
   erroneously believed it lacked the authority to depart. Id. Jones has not
   alleged, and the record does not indicate, that the district court believed it
   lacked that authority. We therefore do not have jurisdiction to review this
   issue.
            We do have jurisdiction to consider whether Jones’s sentence is
   greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a).
   This court reviews preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of
   a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States,
   552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “We presume sentences within or below the
   calculated guidelines range are reasonable.” United States v. Simpson, 796
   F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). 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).
            At sentencing, the district court considered and rejected Jones’s
   arguments for a below-guidelines sentence. Jones has presented nothing to
   indicate that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a)
   factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. His disagreement with the propriety of

                                          2
Case: 22-10599     Document: 00516785146          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                   No. 22-10599

   the sentence imposed is insufficient to rebut the presumption of
   reasonableness. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.
         Based on the foregoing, we DISMISS Jones’s appeal, in part, for lack
   of jurisdiction and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all other
   respects.

                                        3