USA v. Gregory Damm

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11093 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JES , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 08/30/2017 for Appellant Gregory P. Damm [16-11093]

Case: 16-11093

Document: 00514108778

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11093
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 9, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
GREGORY P. DAMM,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-4-1
Before KING, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Gregory P. Damm pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to register as a
sex offender, and he received an above-guidelines sentence of 60 months in
prison as well as a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Damm
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court failed to appreciate that his homelessness made it difficult for him to
register and placed too much emphasis on his criminal history.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 16-11093

Document: 00514108778

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/09/2017

No. 16-11093
If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the
guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that this court evaluate
whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing
factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704,
708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect
the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that
should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors.” Id.
The district court gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and
committed no error when balancing them. See id. Damm’s argument that the
district court should have differently balanced the § 3553(a) factors “is not a
sufficient ground for reversal.” See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 526 (2016).
AFFIRMED.

2