United States v. Jeffrey Randle
This text of United States v. Jeffrey Randle (United States v. Jeffrey Randle) 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.
Opinion
Case: 18-20400 Document: 00514940748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 18-20400 FILED Summary Calendar May 2, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JEFFREY RANDLE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-73-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeffrey Randle appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 40 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for two counts of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable on the ground that his criminal history category overstated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. As Randle acknowledges, his challenge is subject to
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 18-20400 Document: 00514940748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
No. 18-20400
plain error review. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Despite Randle’s arguments, he has not overcome the presumption of substantive reasonableness that applies to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). In addition, while Randle argues that the district court should have granted a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1), p.s., based on over-represented criminal history, there is no indication that the district court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to depart. See United States v. Jefferson, 751 F.3d 314, 322-23 (5th Cir. 2014). AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Jeffrey Randle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jeffrey-randle-ca5-2019.