eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-06

United States v. Canady ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-50903     Document: 00515920305         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/30/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2021
No. 20-50903
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                            Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cedric Jamal Canady,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CR-52-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cedric Jamal Canady pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. The firearm named in the indictment was a Smith &
Wesson, .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.         Canady objected to the
presentence report’s inclusion of a Ruger .22 caliber rifle in the relevant
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50903      Document: 00515920305           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/30/2021
No. 20-50903
conduct for his offense. The district court overruled this objection and
sentenced Canady to 87 months in prison. Canady now appeals his sentence.
In reviewing sentencing challenges, we employ a bifurcated process; we first
examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error. Gall v. United States,
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). If not, we then consider
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard.
    Id.
    Canady first argues that the sentencing facts must have been proven
by clear and convincing evidence. Inclusion of the Ruger rifle resulted in a
guidelines imprisonment range of 70 to 87 months, rather than 37 to 46
months. This increase is not sufficiently dramatic to warrant a higher burden
of proof in the light of United States v. Simpson,
    741 F.3d 539
    , 558-59 (5th Cir.
2014), United States v. Carreon,
    11 F.3d 1225
    , 1240 (5th Cir. 1994), and United
States v. Mergerson,
    4 F.3d 337
    , 343 (5th Cir. 1993). Canady has not shown
that the district court erred procedurally.
With respect to Canady’s argument that the sentence imposed was
substantively unreasonable, the sentence was within the applicable guidelines
range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Tuma,
    738 F.3d 681
    , 695 (5th Cir. 2013). To rebut the presumption of reasonableness,
Canady must show that his sentence fails to take into account a factor that
should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks,
    589 F.3d 173
    , 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
Canady has failed to make this showing. Canady’s disagreement with the
sentence selected by the district court is insufficient to justify reversal.
United States v. Ruiz,
    621 F.3d 390
    , 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2