United States v. Willis ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30157 Document: 00516913054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30157
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher R. Willis,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:05-CR-203-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Christopher R. Willis appeals the 60-month above-guidelines
sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We review this
claim under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Miller,
634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Under this standard, the sentence is
examined for “significant procedural error” and substantive reasonableness.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30157 Document: 00516913054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2023
No. 23-30157
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
A revocation sentence is based on a “significant procedural error” if
the district court does not consider the proper factors, bases the chosen
sentence on incorrect facts, or does not adequately explain the choice of
sentence. Id. A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable “if it
(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight,
(2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or
(3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.”
Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Willis has not met
this standard. Rather, his argument that the district court erred when
weighing the pertinent factors amounts to little more than a request for this
court to substitute its judgment for that of the district court, which we will
not do. See id. at 321, 326. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2