UNITED STATES v. SOLOMON (2018)

Jody Ron Solomon appeals the 11-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following its revocation of his prior three-year term of supervised release. Solomon challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the probation officer “failed to perform his obligations in this case.” He asserts that “[r]ather than fulfilling his responsibility to help rehabilitate [him],” the probation officer “prematurely moved to revoke his supervised release.” Solomon also takes issue with the district court’s reliance on a letter from the probation officer stating that he was “ ‘essentially unmanageable,’ even though he had been on supervised release for only about a month.”

The record reflects that the district court was aware of the factors Solomon believed merited a non-revocation sentence. However, after “carefully consider[ing]” the advisory policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. and the “appropriate factors to be considered in imposing a sentence” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e)(3), the district court concluded that an 11-month term of imprisonment was appropriate. Solomon’s arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines revocation sentence. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.