United States v. Reba Moody ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60548 Document: 00515375391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-60548
FILED
April 8, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
REBA DALE MOODY,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:16-CR-90-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Reba Dale Moody appeals the within-guideline sentence imposed on
revocation of her supervised release. She contends that her sentence is plainly
unreasonable because the district court sentenced her to a term of
imprisonment rather than long-term drug treatment.
We review a revocation sentence under the “plainly unreasonable”
standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Moody
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-60548 Document: 00515375391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-60548
has challenged only the substantive reasonableness of her sentence. We
review the substantive reasonableness of her sentence for an abuse of
discretion, examining the totality of the circumstances. See United States v.
Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). A revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable where the district 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 in judgment when
balancing the sentencing factors. Id. at 332.
Moody’s contention that the district court improperly considered the
need to solve the problem of her addiction and failed to consider the nature and
circumstances of her offense is unavailing. The record reflects that the district
court considered Moody’s arguments that her best chance at recovery was long-
term treatment but determined that under the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, a term of imprisonment was appropriate. Under the totality of the
circumstances, Moody has not shown that the district court clearly erred with
respect to the weight it gave to her personal history and characteristics, the
need to deter her, and the need to sentence her to time in prison. See id. at
331–33.
Any suggestion by Moody that the district court impermissibly
considered the need to punish her for her addiction and that the prison term
ran afoul of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) is belied by the record.
Further, Moody’s complaint that the district court failed to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants is conclusory and unsupported. See
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2