United States v. Lord

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30613
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL A. LORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:15-CR-240-1

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

Michael A. Lord pleaded guilty to conspiracy to operate an unlicensed
money servicing business involving bitcoin and to conspiracy to distribute and
possess Alprazolam (Xanax), a Schedule IV controlled substance, with the
intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment on the
bitcoin conspiracy and 60 months on the drug conspiracy, to run consecutively.
On his first appeal, we affirmed his convictions but reversed and remanded his

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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: 19-30613 Document: 00515405266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020

No. 19-30613
2
sentence. On remand, the district court sentenced Lord to consecutive 46 and
60-month sentences, for a total of 106 months. Lord objected because this was
the same sentence imposed prior to this court’s remand. Lord now appeals,
challenging his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
We review a district court’s sentencing decision for procedural and
substantive reasonableness, under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007).
Lord complains that the district court erred in justifying its sentence
with only conclusory reasons. But the district court considered the parties’
arguments, and it gave its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences totaling
106 months, making clear its rationale for the sentence. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). This is sufficient under our precedent. See id.
Further, Lord cannot show that the district court abused its discretion
by misapplying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). The district court did not impose a
Guidelines-based sentence under § 5G1.2(d) but upwardly varied. Section
5G1.2 does not limit the district court’s discretion to vary upwardly from the
guidelines range based upon the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and impose
consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; United States v. Conlan, 768 F.3d
380, 394-95 & n.46 (5th Cir. 2015).
Lord’s substantive reasonableness challenge also fails under the abuse-
of-discretion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th
Cir. 2010). The district court’s comments at sentencing reflect its consideration
of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.
2006). Lord asks us to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which is outside the scope
of our review. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Given the deference afforded to a
district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors and the reasons for its
Case: 19-30613 Document: 00515405266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020

No. 19-30613
3
sentencing decision, Lord has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable. See
id. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30613 Document: 00515405266 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2020