United States v. Chavarria

Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10785
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 9, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jeremiah Pena Chavarria,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:21-CR-60-1
______________________________
Before Davis, Smith, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jeremiah Pena Chavarria appeals his 84-month sentence for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The sentence represents a 27-month upward
variance from the guidelines range based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
particularly the need to protect the public from further crimes. Chavarria
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-10785
argues that his non-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it fails to account for factors—his traumatic childhood, his history of
drug addiction and mental health issues, and his successful work as a
subcontractor—that should have received significant weight.
We review sentences, whether inside or outside the guidelines range,
for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) and
review preserved challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When, as in this case, the district court imposes a non-
guidelines sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including
the extent of any variance from the guidelines range, to determine whether
the § 3553(a) factors support the sentence. See United States v. Broussard,
669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012).
In this case, the district court’s reasons for imposing an upward
variance were thoughtful and individualized. After thoroughly discussing
relevant sentencing factors, including Chavarria’s personal history and
criminal history, the district court concluded that a sentence of 84 months
was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to protect the public from
further crimes and provide adequate deterrence given Chavarria’s long
history of engaging in dangerous conduct. That the district court gave greater
weight to those factors than to the mitigating factors, which the court
expressly considered, does not represent a clear error of judgment, and we
will not reweigh the balancing of those sentencing factors. See Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. Chavarria’s disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the
§ 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v.
Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). Further, although Chavarria does
not raise any argument regarding the extent of the upward variance, the
totality of the circumstances, including the extent of the variance and the
§ 3553(a) factors identified by the district court, particularly the need for the
2
Case: 22-10785 Document: 00516781709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-10785
sentence to protect the public in light of Chavarria’s lengthy and violent
criminal history, support the imposition of the upward variance in this case.
See id.; Broussard, 669 F.3d at 551.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3