United States v. Montgomery ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30553 Document: 00516243679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 17, 2022
No. 21-30553
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steven Charles Montgomery,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:20-CR-159-1
Before Clement, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Steven Charles Montgomery appeals his 292-month within-guidelines
sentence of imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy
to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that his sentence is 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30553 Document: 00516243679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2022
No. 21-30553
unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper weight to his
cooperation, his health, and his circumstances.
Our review is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burney,
992 F.3d 398, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2021). Sentences within the properly
calculated advisory guidelines range, as here, are presumed to be
substantively reasonable, and we will infer from such a sentence that “the
district court has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the
Guidelines.” United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Montgomery’s arguments
regarding the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors and its
refusal to grant him a downward variance fail to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness. See United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir. 2016).
He fails to 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 committed a clear error of judgment in
balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Hernandez,
876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
2