United States v. Majors ( 2022 )

Case: 20-40699 Document: 00516163607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 12, 2022
No. 20-40699
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin Majors,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-21-2
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Justin Majors appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
convictions for conspiracy to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)
and (c) (Count One); interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(2) and (a)(3) (Counts Two and Three); and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40699 Document: 00516163607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-40699
conspiracy to launder proceeds of an unlawful activity in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count Four). Majors challenges the substantive
reasonableness of his below-guidelines 540-month sentence, arguing that it is
excessive because it creates an unwarranted disparity between his sentence
and the sentences imposed on some of his co-defendants. He further states
that the district court failed to offer “any reasonable justification” for the
disparity.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse
of discretion, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and we “presume
sentences within or below the calculated guidelines range are reasonable,”
United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). To rebut the
presumption, Majors must show that the sentence “does not account for a
factor that should have received significant weight, . . . gives significant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear error of
judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id. at 558 (quoting United States
v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013)). One factor the district court
should consider is “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
Majors fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is
afforded to his 540-month sentence, which is below the recommended
guidelines sentence of life. See Simpson, 796 F.3d at 557-58. “First, ‘avoiding
unwarranted general sentencing disparities is not a factor that we grant
significant weight where the sentence is within the Guidelines range.’”
United States v. Naidoo, 995 F.3d 367, 383 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting United
States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592, 604 (5th Cir. 2011)). Also, Majors makes no
comparison between his conduct and that of similarly situated defendants
nationwide, and he has not demonstrated that he and his co-defendants were
similarly situated. See United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435
2
Case: 20-40699 Document: 00516163607 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-40699
(5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 476 (5th Cir. 2006).
Notably, in sentencing Majors, the district court determined that Majors was
the “ringleader” of his co-defendants. The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3