USA v. Henderson, No. 22-30267 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-30267 Document: 00516558585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-30267 Summary Calendar FILED November 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Johnny Lee Henderson, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:21-CR-99-1 Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Johnny Lee Henderson, Jr., appeals the 188-month within-guidelines sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. He asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that his being a father, employment history, and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-30267 Document: 00516558585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022 No. 22-30267 intention to be a productive member of society should have been given more weight than his lengthy criminal history. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review sentences for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We first examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error. Id. at 51. If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, we will then typically consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Henderson’s withinguidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012). Henderson’s general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the district court’s weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors does not rebut that presumption. See United States v. Rita, 551 F.3d 338, 3602 (2007). Consequently, 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.
