United States v. Coulston ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60429 Document: 00516691358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60429
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ March 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Daniel Blake Coulston,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:20-CR-47-1
______________________________
Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Daniel Blake Coulston appeals the 210-month, within-guidelines
sentence imposed following a guilty plea to distribution of child pornography.
He argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence and failed to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. This argument was not presented to the district court, and he did
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60429 Document: 00516691358 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-60429
not request a downward variance. We therefore review for plain error. See
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To
establish plain error, an appellant must show that the district court
committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett
v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Coulston has failed to show that there was any error in the district
court’s balancing of the sentencing factors, let alone showing an error that
affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186
(5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. The district court properly
addressed all relevant factors and explained its reasons for the imposed
sentence. We will not reweigh the sentencing factors, as Coulston requests.
See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
To the extent Coulston encourages us to apply a different standard of review
on appeal or alter the substantive reasonableness analysis, such is prohibited
by our rule of orderliness. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375,
378 (5th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2