United States v. King

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2026
• Docket: 25-60324
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-60324 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

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

No. 25-60324 FILED March 11, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kevin King,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:23-CR-122-5 ______________________________

Before Clement, Southwick, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Kevin King pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide a gun to another person, as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (a)(2). He was sentenced to consecutive 57-month terms of imprisonment, resulting in an above-guidelines sentence for a total of 114 months of imprisonment.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60324 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 25-60324

On appeal, King argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence when it ordered his terms of imprisonment to run consecutively instead of concurrently. He specifically asserts that the district court failed to fairly consider the probation officer’s and the Government’s recommendations that his sentences run concurrently, and that the district court did not give appropriate weight to his rehabilitation efforts. We review “a properly preserved claim of substantive unreasonableness for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 480–81 (5th Cir. 2022). Under the totality of the circumstances, including our substantial deference to the district court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the extent of the variance, and the district court’s detailed reasons for its decision, King’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). AFFIRMED.