United States v. Watson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50322 Document: 00516636518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50322
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 6, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Reginald Dwayne Watson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:09-CR-198-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Reginald Watson, federal prisoner #17968-280, appeals the sentence
imposed following revocation of his supervised release. Watson maintains
that the 60-month concurrent sentences show a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors.
The record reflects that the district court’s justification for imposing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50322 Document: 00516636518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
No. 22-50322
the above-guidelines revocation sentence was reasoned, fact-specific, and
consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Warren,
720 F.3d 321, 332–33 (5th Cir. 2013). The court undertook an individualized
assessment of the facts and concluded that concurrent 60-month terms were
proper to satisfy the aims of § 3553(a). There is no indication that the court
did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in balancing the factors. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332.
Watson’s theory that the sentence does not demonstrate an accurate
evaluation or application of the factors reflects nothing more than his dis-
agreement with the district court’s weighing of the factors. His displeasure
with the weight given to particular factors does not justify reversal. See id.That we could reasonably have held that a different sentence was proper does
not render the sentence unreasonable. Id. The record otherwise reflects that
the decision to impose 60-month concurrent sentences was not an abuse of
discretion. See id. at 332–33.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2