USA v. Willis, No. 23-30157 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-30157 Document: 00516913054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-30157 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED September 28, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christopher R. Willis, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:05-CR-203-1 ______________________________ Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Christopher R. Willis appeals the 60-month above-guidelines sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We review this claim under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Under this standard, the sentence is examined for “significant procedural error” and substantive reasonableness. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30157 Document: 00516913054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2023 No. 23-30157 United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A revocation sentence is based on a “significant procedural error” if the district court does not consider the proper factors, bases the chosen sentence on incorrect facts, or does not adequately explain the choice of sentence. Id. A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable “if it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Willis has not met this standard. Rather, his argument that the district court erred when weighing the pertinent factors amounts to little more than a request for this court to substitute its judgment for that of the district court, which we will not do. See id. at 321, 326. 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.