UNITED STATES v. WILKS (2018)

James Wilks challenges his above-Guidelines sentence of 18-months’ imprisonment, imposed following revocation of his supervised release: he claims the sentence is “plainly unreasonable”. Because he preserved the issue in district court, his challenge is reviewed under the above-referenced “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).

Wilks contends the court refused to consider his personal history and characteristics. That assertion, however, is belied by the record: Wilks admitted violating six of the conditions of his supervised release. His claims essentially amount to a disagreement with the court’s assessment of, inter alia, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which we will not reweigh. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In short, Wilks fails to show his sentence is plainly unreasonable. Miller, 634 F.3d at 843; United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261–65 (5th Cir. 2009); e.g., United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500–01 (5th Cir. 2012).

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PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.