United States v. Marshall ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30714 Document: 00516378164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 30, 2022
No. 21-30714
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Perdarius K. Marshall,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:20-CR-194-1
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Perdarius K. Marshall challenges the 120-month sentence of
imprisonment imposed for his guilty-plea convictions for: possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30714 Document: 00516378164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 21-30714
offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He contends his sentence
is excessive in the light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46, 51 (2007). If, as in this instance, no such procedural error exists, a
properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for
substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51;
United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In
that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the
Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g.,
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
As addressed by the Government, the court imposed the lowest
sentence possible in the light of the relevant statutory minimums and the
statutory provision requiring the imprisonment term for the firearm offense
to run consecutively to any other imprisonment term. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A), (D)(ii); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Marshall fails to show
otherwise. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
2