USA v. Stephen Hagin, No. 13-10001 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10001 Document: 00512820068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10001 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 30, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. STEPHEN HAGIN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-146-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stephen Hagin appeals the 365-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. Hagin argues that the district court engaged in impermissible factfinding by holding him responsible at sentencing for 4.76 kilograms of methamphetamine. Though Hagin acknowledges that his statutory range was 5-40 years both 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10001 Document: 00512820068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2014 No. 13-10001 before and after the factfinding, he contends that the district court’s factfinding made a low sentence unlikely, effectively raising the statutory minimum sentence in his case and violating the holding in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). Because Hagin did not object on this basis in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). Hagin does not allege and there is no indication in the record that the district court concluded that a 10-year statutory minimum sentence was applicable in his case. Rather, the district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range based on relevant conduct, and the facts did not have to be admitted by Hagin or found by a jury. See Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 412-13; see also Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2163. There is no plain error. See Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 413. Hagin also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the court improperly balanced the relevant sentencing factors. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Hagin’s sentence was within the guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court considered Hagin’s arguments in mitigation and concluded that a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. Hagin’s argument amounts to a “disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed” and does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); see Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. The judgment of the district court is 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.
