United States v. Vestal ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10325 Document: 00515711716 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 19, 2021
No. 20-10325
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robert Allen Vestal,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-107-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robert Allen Vestal appeals his 48-month sentence following his
guilty plea conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. He contends that the district court’s upward variance
from the guidelines imprisonment range of 30 to 37 months was substantively
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10325 Document: 00515711716 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-10325
unreasonable because it failed to fully account for the fact that he possessed
only a small quantity of drugs. And he argues that the district court
compounded its error by unreasonably ordering the sentence to run
consecutively to his six-year state sentence for a separate drug offense.
However, the district court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553and relied on aggravating circumstances—including Vestal’s recidivism, that
prior more lenient sentences failed to deter his conduct, and that he
committed the instant offense while on bail for a state drug offense—in
arriving at its selected sentence. Vestal does not show that the district court
failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432,
440-41 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that his sentence
was substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of
correcting the clerical errors in the written statement of reasons, which does
not reflect the total offense level or guidelines range calculated by the district
court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
2