United States v. Hudson

Opinion

Case: 25-60172 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-60172 FILED November 20, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Austin Hudson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:24-CR-83-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Austin Hudson appeals the 60-month, above-guidelines sentence imposed following his conviction for possessing and transferring a machinegun, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Hudson argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court impermissibly relied on the presentence report’s (PSR) bare and unreliable

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60172 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2025

No. 25-60172

account of his pending state charges. He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review Hudson’s unpreserved challenges to the district court’s consideration of his pending charges for plain error. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2022). Hudson has not established that the PSR’s descriptions of those charges amounted to bare arrest records. See United States v. Reyna-Aragon, 992 F.3d 381, 390-91 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 229-31 (5th Cir. 2012). He likewise has not established that the PSR’s descriptions of his pending charges lacked an adequate evidentiary basis or lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. See Harris, 702 F.3d at 230-31; United States v. Parkerson, 984 F.3d 1124, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, Hudson cannot show that the district court clearly or obviously erred by relying on the PSR’s account of his pending charges during the sentencing process. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Hudson’s preserved general challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Zarco- Beiza, 24 F.4th at 480-81. The district court provided sufficient justification to support the above-guidelines sentence, and Hudson has not established that the court abused its discretion when assigning weight to specific sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708-10 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED.