USA v. Martin, No. 23-30665 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-30665 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 6, 2024 No. 23-30665 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Eric Martin, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:23-CR-21-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Eric Martin pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (outlining unlawful conduct), (b)(1)(A) (setting penalty). reasonableness of his He challenges the substantive within-Guidelines 274-months’-imprisonment sentence. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30665 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 No. 23-30665 Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A sentence imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines sentencing range, as in this instance, is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. E.g., United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020). Defendant can rebut this presumption by showing “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”. Id. (citation omitted). Martin fails to rebut the presumption. At sentencing, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, adopted the presentence investigation report, confirmed it reviewed Martin’s sentencing memorandum, and listened to his contentions for receiving a lower sentence. Martin’s “claim amounts to a request that we reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do”. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
