United States v. Ezell ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50946 Document: 00516762743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50946
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 24, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jeremy Randall Ezell,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:22-CR-68-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jeremy Randall Ezell appeals the 210-month, top-of-guidelines
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to distribution and possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine and
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50946 Document: 00516762743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2023
No. 22-50946
methamphetamine. He argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because the district
court is best able to assess the facts and make an individualized
determination, this review is “highly deferential.” United States v.
Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range
is “presumptively reasonable,” and we infer that the district court
considered all the factors and considerations set forth in the Guidelines and
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338
(5th Cir. 2008). This presumption can be rebutted “only upon a showing
that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant
weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it
represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United
States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
Ezell has failed to show that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable. The district court properly considered all relevant factors and
explained its reasons for the imposed sentence. We will not reweigh the
sentencing factors and substitute our own judgment for that of the district
court, as Ezell requests. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167
(5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
2