United States v. Richard ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30579 Document: 00516246523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-30579 March 21, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jeremiah Richard,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CR-285-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jeremiah Richard appeals the sentence of 48 months in prison
imposed on his guilty-plea conviction for possessing firearms and
ammunition after a felony conviction. He contends the sentence, which is
above the guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because the district
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30579 Document: 00516246523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 21-30579
court placed undue weight on his criminal history and a pending charge
against him in state court.
We review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). Because sentencing courts are better placed “to find facts and
judge their import under the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors with respect to a
particular defendant,” appellate review for substantive reasonableness is
“highly deferential.” United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir.
2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We consider the
totality of the circumstances, “including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range,” but in doing so “must give due deference to the district
court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of
the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Richard identifies no error. Contrary to his assertion that the district
court placed undue weight on the pending charge, the court stated it would
not consider the charge at all. And while the sentence imposed is above the
advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27 month, this court has upheld more
substantial variances or departures in the past. E.g., United States v. Brantley,
537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704,
708-10 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court was required to make an
individualized assessment and could not presume the guidelines range was
reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Richard’s arguments suggest no more
than that a different sentence might have been appropriate, which is not a
sufficient ground for reversal. See id. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2