United States v. Barnett ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50375 Document: 00516239538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 15, 2022
No. 21-50375
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Vincent Cournolus Barnett,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CR-129-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Vincent Cournolus Barnett challenges the substantive reasonableness
of the 151-month, within-guidelines sentence that was imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams
of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50375 Document: 00516239538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 21-50375
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii).
He contends he deserved a lower sentence because the methamphetamine
actual guideline provides an unwarranted sentencing disparity with
defendants sentenced for the same drug quantity under the
methamphetamine mixture guideline and because he received criminal
history points for federal and state offenses that arose out of the same course
of conduct. He contends there was no evidence that he was a drug kingpin
or that he had any role in a drug trafficking organization. Because Barnett
argued for a downward variance during sentencing, his challenge is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct.
762, 766-67 (2020).
Nothing in the record reflects that the district court failed to account
for a factor that should have received significant weight or that it gave
“significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor,” and the sentence
does not represent a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing
factors. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017); see
also United States v. Rebulloza, 16 F.4th 480, 485 (5th Cir. 2021); United
States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Barnett’s
argument that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
balancing sentencing factors due to inadequate consideration of mitigating
circumstances does not rebut the presumption that the within-guidelines
sentence is reasonable. See Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67. Such an argument
amounts to a request for us to reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute
our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do. Id. at 167.
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
2