Filed: Sep. 14, 2021
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2021
Case: 21-60274 Document: 00516012911 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-60274 September 14, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Donald Demario Patrick,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:16-CR-88-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Donald Demario Patrick appeals the within-Guidelines sentence
entered following revocation of the supervised release term imposed
pursuant to his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm. He contends
that the district court’s revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60274 Document: 00516012911 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
No. 21-60274
We ordinarily review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Following United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are
reviewed for reasonableness in the light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). United States v. Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2005). We
review a revocation sentence under the plainly unreasonable standard. See
United States v. Miller,
634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). If the sentence is
unreasonable, we may set it aside only if the error was obvious under existing
law.
Id.
Patrick asserts that the district court improperly balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors against the extenuating evidence regarding his simple
assault conviction and the effect a sentence of imprisonment would have on
his family. However, he has made no showing that his sentence is the result
of a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United
States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). His appellate argument is
tantamount to a request that this court re-weigh the § 3553(a) factors, which
we will not do. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. Patrick’s mere disagreement with
the propriety of the sentence imposed does not serve to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence.
See United States v. Ruiz,
621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2
