United States v. Gregory McClung

Case: 19-60814 Document: 00515559111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 10, 2020
No. 19-60814
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GREGORY MCCLUNG,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:13-CR-106-7
Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory McClung was serving a term of supervised release following his
conviction for aiding and abetting education loan fraud. The district court
found that he violated the conditions of release and sentenced him to a prison
term of five months. McClung argues that the five-month revocation sentence
is substantively unreasonable.
*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-60814 Document: 00515559111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2020
No. 19-60814
According to McClung, by ordering a prison term, the district court
effectively terminated his employment and prevented him from continuing to
make restitution payments. But the district court considered McClung’s
argument for a sentence other than imprisonment and his argument that his
employment enabled him to make restitution payments. The court
nevertheless concluded that a prison term was warranted, citing McClung’s
history of noncompliance with supervision. The five-month sentence was
within the advisory range and is therefore presumed reasonable. See United
States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020). McClung has not shown
that the district court, when imposing the sentence, failed to consider a
significant factor, considered an improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in balancing the relevant factors. See United States v. Warren, 720
F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, McClung has not shown that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2