The opinion
Case: 22-30062 Document: 00516410713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30062 July 28, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Quinterrius D. Brown,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:21-CR-159-1
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Quinterrius D. Brown pleaded guilty to illegally receiving a firearm
while under indictment, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). The district court
sentenced Brown to 24 months in prison, an upward variance from the
Guidelines’ imprisonment range of 12–18 months. On appeal, Brown makes
two arguments: (1) that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-30062 Document: 00516410713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 22-30062
it was primarily based on pending charges listed in his presentence report
(PSR) that bore insufficient indicia of reliability; and (2) that the sentence
was substantively unreasonable because the upward variance gave too much
weight to his pending charges and too little weight to other sentencing
factors.
Because Brown raised his procedural-error claim below, we review the
challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence de novo and the
district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Fields, 932
F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2019). We review Brown’s substantive-
reasonableness claim, which was properly preserved, for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 480-81 (5th Cir. 2022).
Here, the PSR provided a factual recitation of Brown’s conduct that
resulted in various pending criminal charges. The facts, drawn from police
offense reports, provided the victims’ identities, a description of an
attempted first-degree murder (in connection with a drive-by shooting), the
location of the second-degree murder (committed while awaiting prosecution
on the first-degree murder charge), a description of how the victim was killed,
and the witnesses’ identification of Brown as the individual who shot the
victim. Such factual underpinnings provided sufficient indicia of reliability
for the district court to have relied on these pending charges during
sentencing on the federal firearms charge. See United States v. Fuentes, 775
F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Because Brown offered no
testimony or other evidence to rebut the PSR information, the district court
could freely adopt the PSR’s findings without further inquiry. See id.
Accordingly, the district court did not commit procedural error by
considering the pending charges at sentencing. See id.
As for the substantive-reasonableness claim, the district court stated
that it applied the variance in light of Brown’s criminal history and charges,
2
Case: 22-30062 Document: 00516410713 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2022
No. 22-30062
his personal characteristics, information in a letter from Brown to the district
court about his reason for obtaining the firearm, and his involvement in the
instant firearms offense. These are appropriate considerations under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), which provides that in sentencing, the district court shall
consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant.” § 3553(a)(1). Insofar as Brown argues that
the district court gave more weight to the pending charges than to the other
§ 3553(a) factors, he is requesting that we reweigh § 3553(a), which is outside
the scope of our review. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439-40 (5th
Cir. 2013). The district court’s decision to give Brown’s mitigating
circumstances less weight than his criminal history was not an abuse of
discretion. See id. at 440-41.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3