United States v. Coleman ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30401
FILED
December 18, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Dasmore T. Coleman,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:22-CR-211-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Dasmore T. Coleman pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of
methamphetamine and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 264
months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. He
now appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Specifically, he contends that the district court did not adequately consider
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2023
No. 23-30401
that (1) the underlying methamphetamine transactions were initiated by a
confidential informant, (2) law enforcement dictated the quantity of drugs
purchased by the informant, (3) the offense did not involve violence, and
(4) Coleman was a “low-level” street dealer, instead of a major drug
trafficker or repeat violent offender. Further, he argues that his offense was
relatively minor due to the amount of drugs involved. According to Coleman,
the district court only considered the punitive 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and did not consider whether the sentence was greater than necessary
to achieve the goals of deterrence, respect for the law, protection of the
public, and rehabilitation.
Coleman preserved this issue for appeal by “advocat[ing] for a
sentence shorter than the one ultimately imposed” in the district court.
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). We review
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United
States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). A discretionary sentence
imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness, which may be rebutted “by showing that the
sentence does not account for factors that should receive significant weight,
gives significant weight to irrelevant or improper factors, or represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Rashad, 687 F.3d at 644.
A “disagreement” either “with the propriety of the sentence imposed” or
with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors does not suffice to
rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390,
398 (5th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Koss, 812 F.3d 460, 472 (5th Cir.
2016).
Here, the record reflects that the district court considered the
presentence report, which contained all relevant information about the
underlying offense and Coleman’s history and characteristics, as well as the
2
Case: 23-30401 Document: 00517004762 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2023
No. 23-30401
parties’ arguments, and the record generally, which contained defense
counsel’s sentencing memorandum and letters of support from Coleman’s
family and friends. Further, the district court stated that it considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and “appropriate policy concerns.” Ultimately, the district
court concluded that the guidelines range was fair and reasonable, and a 264-
month sentence, at the lower end of the range, was warranted. Essentially,
Coleman asks this court to “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute
our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do.” United
States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Coleman has
not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-
guidelines sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion. See id.AFFIRMED.
3