USA v. Torrance Scott, No. 15-30279 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30279 Document: 00513643477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-30279 Summary Calendar FILED August 18, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TORRANCE SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14-CR-23-13 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Torrance Scott appeals his guilty plea conviction and 139-month, belowguidelines sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, or crack cocaine. Scott argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his plea was induced by erroneous advice from 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-30279 Document: 00513643477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2016 No. 15-30279 counsel. He also raises a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on that basis. The district court advised Scott of the maximum sentence he faced, and Scott testified under oath that he understood. The district court concluded that Scott’s plea was knowing and voluntary, Scott had the close assistance of counsel, Scott did not assert his innocence, and that a trial would thus waste judicial resources. It thus reasoned that, under the totality of circumstances, the factors listed in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), weighed against permitting withdrawal of the plea. Scott has not shown that the district court abused its broad discretion by denying his motion. See id. at 344. Scott also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity and fails to reflect that his prior offenses, involving small amounts of drugs, occurred when he was a young man; he had been a caretaker for his elderly family members; and he tried to find legitimate employment, but back pain and addiction hobbled his efforts. Scott has not demonstrated that “a similarly-situated defendant received a lesser sentence,” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006), or that the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or exercised clearly erroneous judgment in balancing the sentencing factors, see United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 558 (5th Cir. 2015). He has therefore failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence is reasonable. See id. We decline to consider Scott’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to Scott’s right to raise it on collateral review. See United 2 Case: 15-30279 Document: 00513643477 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2016 No. 15-30279 States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
