USA v. Carl Preston, Jr., No. 09-20496 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-20496 Document: 00511119810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-20496 Summary Calendar May 24, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARL EDWARD PRESTON, JR., Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-14-3 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carl Edward Preston, Jr., pleaded guilty to aggravated bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court imposed a within-guidelines range sentence of 71 months of imprisonment on the bank robbery count and a mandatory consecutive sentence of 84 months of imprisonment on the brandishing a firearm count. Preston appeals the sentence imposed on the bank robbery count, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by failing to sufficiently explain its reasons for rejecting 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-20496 Document: 00511119810 Page: 2 No. 09-20496 Date Filed: 05/24/2010 request for a downward variance from the guidelines sentence range and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. [W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The requirement that the district court explain its sentence may be satisfied if the district court listens to arguments and then indicates that a sentence within the guidelines range is appropriate. Id. at 35759. The record shows that the district court heard Preston s arguments, rejected those arguments, and stated that a sentence within the applicable guidelines range satisfied the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, the district court s explanation of the sentence imposed, while brief, was legally sufficient. See id. at 358-59. A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). The fact that this court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We conclude there is no reason to disturb the presumption of reasonableness in this case. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). 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.