United States v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-30339
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-30339 Document: 00516664832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

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

No. 22-30339 FILED Summary Calendar March 3, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tawaski Tavon Lewis,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:21-CR-232-3 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Tawaski Tavon Lewis appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for theft of firearms from a federal firearm licensee. He argues that his 120-month within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We need not determine whether Lewis properly preserved this issue because his claim fails under the standard of review for preserved

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-30339 Document: 00516664832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

No. 22-30339

claims of error. See United States v. Scott, 654 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 2011). We review for abuse of discretion. See id. A properly calculated sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). This presumption is rebutted only if the appellant demonstrates that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. Id. Lewis fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness given to his within guidelines sentence because he does not show that the district court failed to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines range, the kinds of sentences available pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1), or certain mitigating characteristics. See id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Likewise, Lewis does not show that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors when it gave significant weight to his criminal history in determining his sentence. Instead, his claim invites this court to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors and substitute its own judgment on appeal, which we will not do. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.