United States v. Karl Copeland , 598 F. App'x 255 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-10422 Document: 00512907657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-10422 FILED
Summary Calendar January 20, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KARL LEE COPELAND,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-30
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Karl Lee Copeland appeals the sentence imposed by the district court
after his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute a controlled substance. He argues that the sentence was
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not give sufficient
weight to his withdrawal from the conspiracy after eight weeks, to his age and
his projected 15-year life expectancy, and to the public perception that
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-10422 Document: 00512907657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2015
No. 14-10422
guidelines sentences are too harsh. He further asserts that the district court
should have considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
between his sentence and that of his codefendants.
Because the 188-month sentence was within the advisory guidelines
range, it is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.
Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court considered the
Presentence Report, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and Copeland’s
arguments for a downward departure or variance. The district court noted
that, but for defense counsel’s arguments, a higher sentence might have been
warranted given Copeland’s extensive criminal history. Instead, the district
court determined that a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range was
appropriate. Copeland’s disagreement with the propriety of the sentence or
the weight given to § 3553(a) factors is not sufficient to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
The district court did not err in rejecting Copeland’s argument for a lesser
sentence based on his withdrawal from the conspiracy, as he did not show that
he affirmatively withdrew from the conspiracy or that the district court failed
to give this fact the proper weight. See United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413,
428 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 470 (2013). Copeland has not shown that
there were unwarranted sentence disparities because he provided no
information about his codefendants’ criminal histories or other particular
aggravating or mitigating facts concerning any other defendant convicted of
this offense. See United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
2007). For these reasons, Copeland has failed to overcome the presumption
that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at
186.
AFFIRMED.
2