United States v. Younger

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60243
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER YOUNGER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-162-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Christopher Younger appeals his above-guidelines sentence of 120
months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Younger argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court erred in balancing the
statutory sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60243 Document: 00515404938 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020

No. 19-60243
2
We review a preserved challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Review for substantive reasonableness is highly
deferential. See United States v. Pillault, 783 F.3d 282, 288 (5th Cir. 2015).
Younger has not shown that the district court gave improper weight to
any factor or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the pertinent
sentencing factors. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir.
2015). A district court need not engage in a checklist recitation of the § 3553(a)
factors and implicit consideration of those factors generally is sufficient. See
United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012). Here, the district
court conducted a lengthy sentencing proceeding and heard much testimony
from Younger and his father, but it ultimately focused on Younger’s extensive
criminal history and his history of recidivism. A defendant’s criminal history
is a factor a sentencing court may consider in imposing a non-guideline
sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006).
Disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors “is not
a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342
(5th Cir. 2016). In light of this deferential standard of review, we conclude
that Younger has not shown that the district court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-60243 Document: 00515404938 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020