United States v. King

Case: 22-60627 Document: 00516797518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60627 FILED
Summary Calendar June 23, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Javon Montreal King,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:21-CR-101-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Javon Montreal King appeals the 120-month within-guidelines
sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. King argues that his 120-month sentence is greater
than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Where, as here, the district court issues a sentence that is within a properly
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60627 Document: 00516797518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2023
No. 22-60627
calculated guidelines range, a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
applies. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To
rebut this presumption, King must show “that the sentence does not account
for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight
to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment
in balancing sentencing factors.” Id. As King did not preserve such a
challenge, we review the district court’s decision for plain error only. Cf.
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). However,
even under the ordinary standard, King has not demonstrated that his
sentence is unreasonable.
After considering the parties’ arguments, the presentence report
(PSR) and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court determined that
the statutory maximum, which was coextensive with the guidelines range,
was appropriate based on the seriousness of the present offense, King’s lack
of respect for the law, his danger to the community, the need to assure the
community that the court takes these offenses seriously, and the possibility
that the system had not sufficiently rehabilitated him. Although King now
asserts that the court failed sufficiently to consider his untreated ADHD,
other potential mental health issues, drug addiction and educational history
as mitigating factors, given the minimal information provided the district
court about these matters, he has not shown that the court failed to give them
sufficient weight. To the contrary, the record reflects that the court reviewed
the PSR and was aware of King’s history, including his mental health and
drug abuse issues. King’s disagreement with the weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors and his sentence is insufficient to establish the district court erred in
balancing them. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2