United States v. Bradford ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50926 Document: 00516836903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50926
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Dale Bradford,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CR-76-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant James Dale Bradford pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(C).
The district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment and three
years of supervised release. We affirm.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50926 Document: 00516836903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2023
No. 22-50926
Bradford asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He
contends that the district court should have granted a downward variance
because he was sentenced under the guideline for actual methamphetamine
instead of methamphetamine mixture. Bradford contends that the disparate
guidelines for methamphetamine mixture and actual methamphetamine do
not track relative culpability and are not based on empirical evidence.
Bradford’s claim is based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Kimbrough v. United States, which held that the disparity between the
guidelines ranges for crack and powder cocaine offenses resulted in an
excessive sentence. 552 U.S. 85, 109–10 (2007). The Court reasoned that the
crack cocaine guideline did not reflect the Sentencing Commission’s
ordinary methods of relying on empirical evidence and national experience.
Id.We review a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 598 (5th Cir.
2014). Sentences within or below the guidelines range are presumed to be
reasonable, and Kimbrough does not disturb that presumption. See United
States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Lara, 23
F.4th 459, 485 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2790 (2022). “The
district court is better situated to weigh the Guidelines’ policy considerations
as applied to a particular defendant, and [this court’s] deference to the
exercise of that discretion, backed up by the Commission’s deliberations, is
proper.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir.
2009).
The presumption of reasonableness “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
2
Case: 22-50926 Document: 00516836903 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2023
No. 22-50926
States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Bradford has not made such
a showing. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
3