United States v. Matthew Matthews ( 2020 )

Case: 19-30801 Document: 00515540043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-30801 FILED
Summary Calendar August 25, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MATTHEW MATTHEWS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:18-CR-347-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Matthew Matthews pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after having
been convicted of a felony and now appeals the 70-month sentence imposed.
Matthews argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6(B)) and also imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-30801 Document: 00515540043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
No. 19-30801
We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United
States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of
the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a four-level enhancement when the
Government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant’s
possession of a firearm “facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating another
felony offense and that the defendant used or possessed the firearm in
connection with that offense.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Matthews argues that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain
the enhancement based on his commission of a drug offense. However, he has
abandoned any challenge to the alternative determination that the
enhancement was proper based on his commission of an aggravated felony.
United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365, 371 (5th Cir. 1992); Brinkmann v. Dallas
Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). A guidelines
enhancement can be sustained on any ground supported by the record,
regardless of whether the district court relied upon those grounds. See United
States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 308 n.11 (5th Cir. 2006). The record provides
sufficient facts to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Matthews
committed aggravated assault, and he does not provide any evidence to rebut
the reliability of the evidence. See United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590-
91 (5th Cir. 2013).
We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Matthews argues the district court did not properly consider his request for a
downward departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the
downward departure because nothing in the record suggests that the district
court believed that it lacked authority to depart. See United States v. Tuma,
2
Case: 19-30801 Document: 00515540043 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
No. 19-30801
738 F.3d 681, 691 (5th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, we presume that a within-
guidelines sentence, like Matthews’s, is reasonable. United States v. Jenkins,
712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court considered Matthews’s
mitigation arguments, the evidence, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before
determining that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines was appropriate.
Matthews fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his
sentence by showing that the district court relied on an irrelevant or improper
factor or erred in balancing the sentencing factors. Jenkins, 712 F.3d at 214.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3