The opinion
Case: 11-50324 Document: 00511698133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 16, 2011
No. 11-50324
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-78-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Brown appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea conviction for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute
more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater
than necessary to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Brown
asserts that application of the career offender enhancement yielded an advisory
guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of his offenses and did not
properly account for the § 3553(a) factors. He also argues that the sentence fails
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50324 Document: 00511698133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2011
No. 11-50324
to account for mitigating factors in his personal history and characteristics,
particularly his problems with substance abuse.
Brown does not dispute the calculation of the guidelines range. Rather,
he challenges the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Where the district
court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is
presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d
337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court considered Brown’s arguments
for a lower sentence and made an individualized sentencing decision based on
the facts of the case and in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Brown’s sentence is presumed to be reasonable
because it was within his guidelines range, and he has not shown sufficient
reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See United States v. Cooks,
589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, he has not shown error, plain or
otherwise, with respect to the sentence imposed. See United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2