United States v. Patrick Hollowell

Case: 12-60312 Document: 00512061328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 21, 2012
No. 12-60312
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
PATRICK HOLLOWELL,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:11-CR-46-3
Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Subsequent to pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping for
ransom, kidnapping for ransom, and carrying and brandishing a firearm during
a crime of violence, Patrick Hollowell was sentenced, inter alia, to 324-months’
imprisonment. Hollowell contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because: the district court abused its discretion in balancing the sentencing
factors by failing to account for his drug addiction’s role in his criminal history,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-60312 Document: 00512061328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2012
No. 12-60312
the family tragedies he had recently suffered, and his efforts to cooperate with
authorities; and it is “not comparable” to his codefendants’ sentences.
Post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly
preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
“A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or
a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Teuschler, 689
F.3d 397, 399 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The district court considered Hollowell’s assertions for a lower sentence,
and weighed them against other relevant sentencing factors. In that regard, the
court twice explained it accounted for Hollowell’s cooperation with authorities.
Hollowell challenges the court’s balancing of the sentencing factors, but he fails
to show its decision was based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence. Id. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to
a particular defendant”. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339
(5th Cir. 2008).
Regarding Hollowell’s contention that his sentence is “not comparable” to
his codefendants’ sentences, he fails to show his codefendants were similarly
situated to him. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (district court must consider “the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”) (emphasis added);
United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010) (no
unwarranted disparity where codefendant convicted of different crime or
received downward departure).
AFFIRMED.
2