United States v. Johnny Hopper ( 2014 )

Case: 13-50059 Document: 00512470397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50059
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 13, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOHNNY ASHLEY HOPPER,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:08-CR-65-3
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Johnny Ashley Hopper appeals from the revocation of his term of
probation and the imposition of a five year term of imprisonment. He contends
that the district court failed to offer adequate reasons for imposing the five
year term and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We review
both contentions for plain error. See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491,
497 (5th Cir. 2012).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50059 Document: 00512470397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2013
No. 13-50059
The district court’s explanation for the five year sentence addressed
Hopper’s history and characteristics, the need to deter future crimes, and the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (a)(6). Moreover, the record indicates that the district court listened
to and considered Hopper’s argument before imposing sentence. See Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court adequately
explained the reasons for the sentence. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 498.
Hopper’s reasonableness contention is in part predicated on the district
court’s alleged failure to address the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because
those factors were addressed, Hopper’s contention is unavailing. Hopper’s
argument otherwise seeks to have this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors,
something this court will not do. See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328,
343-44 (5th Cir. 2011)
AFFIRMED.
2