United States v. Vo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 28, 2022
• Docket: 22-10166
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-10166 Document: 00516558049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10166 Summary Calendar FILED November 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

John Steven Vo,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-321-1

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* John Steven Vo appeals the sentence, which is within the suggested sentencing range, imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Vo argues that his 24-month sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because he was less culpable

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-10166 Document: 00516558049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022

No. 22-10166

than his codefendant in the possession-of-stolen-mail offense that contributed to Vo’s revocation. The record reflects that the district court’s justification for imposing the revocation sentence was reasoned, fact-specific, and consistent with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332- 33 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court undertook an individualized assessment of the facts and concluded that a sentence of 24 months in prison was proper to satisfy the aims of § 3553(a). There is no indication that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or otherwise committed reversible error in balancing the sentencing factors. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Thus, the district court’s decision to impose a 24-month sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 332-33. AFFIRMED.