factors not accounted for by the Guidelines
How later courts described this case
- factors not accounted for by the Guidelines
- applying a plain error standard of review when defendant did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence
- factors already accounted for by the Guidelines
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 21-30143 Document: 00516065446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2021
No. 21-30143 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Brandon Brown,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:20-CR-64-4
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Brandon Brown appeals the sentence imposed following his 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(o) conviction for conspiracy to commit the § 924(c) offense of using,
carrying, brandishing, and discharging firearms in relation to a crime of
violence. Brown challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 84-month
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30143 Document: 00516065446 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 21-30143
prison sentence, which was above his advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57
months.
First, Brown argues that he, unlike his co-defendant, never brandished
a firearm during a robbery and that the district court should not have imposed
an above-guidelines sentence in his case based on concerns that his co-
defendant received a longer aggregate sentence. Next, Brown argues that the
district court should not have relied on the fact that he gave a firearm to his
co-defendant because that fact was already accounted for by the Sentencing
Guidelines in his offense level calculations. Last, Brown contends that the
district court erred in finding that he organized the robberies when he did not
receive a role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.
Brown has not shown that the court plainly erred. See United States v.
Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying a plain error standard of
review when defendant did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence).
His arguments do not show that the district court failed to account for a factor
that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440
F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, the factors noted by Brown are all
permissible for consideration under § 3553(a) in determining whether a non-
guidelines sentence is warranted. See § 3553(a)(6) (need to avoid
unwarranted disparities); United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir.
2010) (factors already accounted for by the Guidelines); United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005) (relevant conduct); Smith, 440 F.3d
at 706, 708-09 (factors not accounted for by the Guidelines). Although
Brown’s sentence is 27 months above the top of his guidelines range, we have
upheld greater variances. See, e.g., Key, 599 F.3d at 475-76.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2