Court Opinion

ID: 9910867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 19:00:49.498271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:43.375598
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30401         Document: 00517004762             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/18/2023

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

                                       No. 23-30401
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               December 18, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Dasmore T. Coleman,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-211-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Dasmore T. Coleman pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of
   methamphetamine and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 264
   months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. He
   now appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
   Specifically, he contends that the district court did not adequately consider

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30401      Document: 00517004762           Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/18/2023

                                     No. 23-30401

   that (1) the underlying methamphetamine transactions were initiated by a
   confidential informant, (2) law enforcement dictated the quantity of drugs
   purchased by the informant, (3) the offense did not involve violence, and
   (4) Coleman was a “low-level” street dealer, instead of a major drug
   trafficker or repeat violent offender. Further, he argues that his offense was
   relatively minor due to the amount of drugs involved. According to Coleman,
   the district court only considered the punitive 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
   factors and did not consider whether the sentence was greater than necessary
   to achieve the goals of deterrence, respect for the law, protection of the
   public, and rehabilitation.
            Coleman preserved this issue for appeal by “advocat[ing] for a
   sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed” in the district court.
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). We review
   the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
   discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United
   States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). A discretionary sentence
   imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to a
   presumption of reasonableness, which may be rebutted “by showing that the
   sentence does not account for factors that should receive significant weight,
   gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factors, or represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Rashad, 687 F.3d at 644.
   A “disagreement” either “with the propriety of the sentence imposed” or
   with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to
   rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390,
   398 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir.
   2016).
            Here, the record reflects that the district court considered the
   presentence report, which contained all relevant information about the
   underlying offense and Coleman’s history and characteristics, as well as the

                                          2
Case: 23-30401      Document: 00517004762         Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/18/2023

                                   No. 23-30401

   parties’ arguments, and the record generally, which contained defense
   counsel’s sentencing memorandum and letters of support from Coleman’s
   family and friends. Further, the district court stated that it considered the
   § 3553(a) factors and “appropriate policy concerns.” Ultimately, the district
   court concluded that the guidelines range was fair and reasonable, and a 264-
   month sentence, at the lower end of the range, was warranted. Essentially,
   Coleman asks this court to “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute
   our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do.” United
   States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Coleman has
   not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-
   guidelines sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion. See id.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3