USA v. Brian Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11759 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 10/16/2017 for Appellant Brian Matthew Brown [16-11759]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11759 Document: 00514168997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11759 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BRIAN MATTHEW BROWN, also known as Downtown, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-2 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Matthew Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Brown argues that his withinguideline sentence of 293 months is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Guidelines range was the result of the quantity of drugs involved in Brown’s offense, his possession of firearms in connection with the crime, and his placement in the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-11759 Document: 00514168997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 No. 16-11759 highest criminal history category. Brown argues that the district court failed to account for his personal history and placed too much weight on his criminal history, the majority of which was a product of his drug addiction. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court heard Brown’s mitigating argument that his crimes were largely a byproduct of a troubled childhood and his ongoing drug addiction and gave Brown “the benefit of the doubt” when it decided to sentence him within the recommended guideline range. The district court noted that even the lengthy Guideline sentence it gave might not have been enough given Brown’s unlawful possession of multiple firearms and his extensive history of committing serious offenses. Brown’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that his within-guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012). Brown has not shown that the district court gave undue weight to the factors, failed to consider relevant factors, or made a clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?