United States v. Milton ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10473 Document: 00516250992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 23, 2022
No. 21-10473
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Natashi Marie Milton,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-339-14
Before Davis, Jones and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Natashi Marie Milton pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced her within the
advisory guidelines range to 87 months in prison and three years 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10473 Document: 00516250992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2022
No. 21-10473
supervised release. On appeal, Milton argues that her sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court erred in balancing the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and in its consideration of her criminal
history and arrests.
Although Milton did not object to the substantive reasonableness of
her sentence, she arguably sought a sentence lower than the one ultimately
imposed. Erring on the side of caution, we analyze Milton’s substantive
reasonableness claim as though error was preserved. See Holguin-Hernandez
v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764-67 (2020), on remand, 955 F.3d 519, 520
n.1 (5th Cir. 2020).
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
46-47, 49-51 (2007). Sentences within the properly calculated advisory
guidelines range, as here, are presumed to be substantively reasonable.
United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). This presumption
“is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a
factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009).
Milton has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded
to her within-guidelines sentence. The district court reviewed and
considered the facts set forth in the record, the arguments of the parties, and
Milton’s allocution. The court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors.
Milton fails to show that her sentence gives significant weight to an irrelevant
or improper factor, represents a clear error of judgment in balancing
sentencing factors, or otherwise constitutes an abuse of discretion. See id.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2