United States v. Wordlaw

Case: 22-30365 Document: 00516607032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30365
FILED
January 11, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Antoyn A. Wordlaw,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:21-CR-223-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Antoyn A. Wordlaw appeals his sentence of 234 months of
imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B). He contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and
that the district court erroneously balanced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
giving undue weight to his criminal history and the resulting sentencing range
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30365 Document: 00516607032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2023
No. 22-30365
calculated under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 without adequately considering the need
to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This
court’s review of the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is “highly
deferential, because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts
and judge their import under the § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular
defendant.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A sentence within a properly
calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See id.In this case, the district court considered the Guidelines and
Wordlaw’s arguments for a sentence below the guidelines range; it ultimately
concluded that based on all of the sentencing factors, the guidelines range
was appropriate. Wordlaw’s appellate arguments amount to a mere
disagreement with the weight that the district court afforded to his mitigating
arguments and his displeasure with the sentence imposed, which is
insufficient to support his contention that the sentence was unreasonable.
See United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 2014); United
States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Wordlaw has
failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to his within-
guidelines sentence and has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009);
Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2