United States v. Reese

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 25-50102
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50102 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2025

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

FILED No. 25-50102 November 25, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cedric Reese,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-159-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Cedric Reese appeals his 180-month sentence for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that his above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. For the first time on appeal, he also contends that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. We review his first argument for an abuse of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50102 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2025

No. 25-50102

discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and his second for plain error, see United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 572 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024). Reese has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by determining the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors justified the above-guidelines sentence despite the asserted mitigating factors in his case. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. 2015). Further, the extent of the upward variance is comparable to those that this court has affirmed. See, e.g, United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010). Finally, Reese’s as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed based on his prior convictions for robbery and burglary. See United States v. Schnur, 132 F.4th 863, 870-71 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 467- 70 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2822 (2025). AFFIRMED.