United States v. Richard Belden ( 2020 )

Case: 20-40103 Document: 00515619629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-40103 October 28, 2020
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Richard Denver Belden,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 4:18-CR-103-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Richard Belden appeals his above-guidelines sentence of 420 months
of imprisonment following his guilty plea to one count of receipt of child
pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (5)(B). Belden challenges only the sub-
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40103 Document: 00515619629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2020
No. 20-40103
stantive reasonableness of his sentence, contending that the district court
imposed a sentence greater than necessary to fulfill the purpose of sentencing
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and created an unwarranted sentencing disparity
as compared to similarly situated defendants. Specifically, Belden maintains
that the court accorded insufficient weight to the recommended guideline
range, failed to consider other factors, such as his personal circumstances,
and assigned too much weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense.
He also avers that the sentence created an unwarranted disparity in light of
the sentence in United States v. Lawrence, 920 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2019), and
the sentences of typical offenders.
We review Belden’s preserved challenge to the substantive reasona-
bleness of a sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See Holguin-
Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020); United States v. Diehl,
775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). The record does not show that the district
court failed to account for a factor that should have received significant
weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or com-
mitted a clear error of judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United
States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The record plainly shows
that the district court did in fact consider Belden’s personal characteristics
and circumstances and the recommended guideline range in addition to the
other § 3553(a) factors. Belden’s arguments amount to no more than a
request for this court to reweigh the statutory sentencing factors, which we
will not do, as the district court is “in a better position to find facts and judge
their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defen-
dant.” United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and footnote omitted).
Furthermore, Belden has not shown that he is similarly situated to the
defendant in Lawrence or the typical offender in all relevant respects and par-
ticularly with respect to the counts of conviction, guideline ranges, amounts
2
Case: 20-40103 Document: 00515619629 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2020
No. 20-40103
of child pornography, and other aggravating factors; therefore, his sentence
has not created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See § 3553(a)(6);
United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2007). Additionally,
because the district court correctly calculated and considered the range, it
“necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid
unwarranted disparities.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 54 (2007). The
court also provided thorough justification for the upward variance, explicitly
citing Belden’s unique aggravating circumstances. See United States v.
McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344−45 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Key, 599 F.3d
469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010).
Under the totality of circumstances, including the significant defer-
ence that is given to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,
the extent of the variance, and the court’s reasons for its decision, the sen-
tence was reasonable. See Fraga, 704 F.3d at 439−40. AFFIRMED.
3