USA v. Dontrelle Sanford, No. 18-60287 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-60287 Document: 00514738268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-60287 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 27, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DONTRELLE DESHAUN SANFORD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:18-CR-14-1 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dontrelle Deshaun Sanford pleaded guilty to possession of contraband in a Federal Correctional Institution, and he was sentenced to six and a half months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his underlying sentence, after he was given credit for time served in the county detention center. He contends that the sentence, which was within the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is substantively unreasonable. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60287 Document: 00514738268 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 No. 18-60287 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuseof-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, the district court considered Sanford’s request for time served based on administrative penalties already imposed by the Bureau of Prisons but determined that the sentence was appropriate in light of Sanford’s criminal history and its belief that a lower sentence would not provide the required deterrent effect. Sanford’s arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). 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.