United States v. Watson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-50322
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-50322 Document: 00516636518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50322 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 6, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Reginald Dwayne Watson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09-CR-198-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Reginald Watson, federal prisoner #17968-280, appeals the sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. Watson maintains that the 60-month concurrent sentences show a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court’s justification for imposing

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50322 Document: 00516636518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2023

No. 22-50322

the above-guidelines revocation sentence was reasoned, fact-specific, and consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332–33 (5th Cir. 2013). The court undertook an individualized assessment of the facts and concluded that concurrent 60-month terms were proper to satisfy the aims of § 3553(a). There is no indication that the court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the factors. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Watson’s theory that the sentence does not demonstrate an accurate evaluation or application of the factors reflects nothing more than his dis- agreement with the district court’s weighing of the factors. His displeasure with the weight given to particular factors does not justify reversal. See id. That we could reasonably have held that a different sentence was proper does not render the sentence unreasonable. Id. The record otherwise reflects that the decision to impose 60-month concurrent sentences was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 332–33. The judgment is AFFIRMED.