UNITED STATES v. GARDNER (2020)

Jeremy Craig Gardner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. He now appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his above-guidelines sentence.

Because Gardner advocated for a shorter sentence in the district court, he preserved his substantive reasonableness challenge. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67, 206 L.Ed.2d 95 (2020). In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, this court applies an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable if it does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 2017). This court's review is highly deferential to the district court, as it is “in a better position to find facts and judge their import” under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant. Id. (quoting United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015)).

In this case, the district court determined a 60-month sentence was appropriate based on Gardner's extensive criminal history, including several unscored convictions for theft and driving while intoxicated. Gardner argues the district court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors such as his struggle with substance abuse and his lack of a violent criminal history. However, this court will not engage in a reweighing of the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Gardner has not shown the district court abused its discretion in concluding his lengthy criminal history outweighed his mitigating characteristics. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding a district court may consider a defendant's criminal history in imposing a non-guidelines sentence).

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PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.