United States v. Brian Brown

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Brian Brown

697 F. App'x 425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2017

Docket16-11759 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 697 F. App'x 425 (United States v. Brian Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Brian Brown, 697 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Brian Matthew Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Brown argues that his within-guideline sentence of 293 months is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Guidelines range was the result of the quantity of drugs involved in Brown’s offense, his possession of firearms in connection with the crime, and his placement in the highest criminal history category. Brown argues that the district court failed to account for his personal history and placed too much weight on his criminal history, the majority of which- was a product of his drug addiction. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The court heard Brown’s mitigating argument that his crimes were largely a byproduct of a troubled childhood and his ongoing drug addiction and gave Brown “the benefit of the doubt” when it decided to sentence him within the recommended guideline range. The district court noted that even the lengthy Guideline sentence it gave might not have been enough given Brown’s unlawful possession of multiple firearms and his extensive history of committing serious offenses. Brown’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that his within-guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).

Brown has not shown that the district court gave undue weight to the factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Brian Matthew Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Brown argues that his within-guideline sentence of 293 months is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Guidelines range was the result of the quantity of drugs involved in Brown’s offense, his possession of firearms in connection with the crime, and his placement in the highest criminal history category. Brown argues that the district court failed to account for his personal history and placed too much weight on his criminal history, the majority of which- was a product of his drug addiction. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The court heard Brown’s mitigating argument that his crimes were largely a byproduct of a troubled childhood and his ongoing drug addiction and gave Brown “the benefit of the doubt” when it decided to sentence him within the recommended guideline range. The district court noted that even the lengthy Guideline sentence it gave might not have been enough given Brown’s unlawful possession of multiple firearms and his extensive history of committing serious offenses. Brown’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that his within-guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).

Brown has not shown that the district court gave undue weight to the factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 F. App'x 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brian-brown-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack