United States v. Medlock

Case: 22-11217 Document: 00516814755 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-11217

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 10, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Andrea Lamont Medlock,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-368-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Andrea Lamont Medlock appeals the 24-month within-guidelines prison sentence he received for violating the terms of his supervised release. Medlock argues that the revocation of his supervised release and 24-month statutory maximum sentence is plainly unreasonable because the facts of the case do not warrant this level of severity. When a defendant properly Case: 22-11217 Document: 00516814755 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

No. 22-11217 preserves an objection for appeal, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A 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.

The record indicates the district court employed an individualized, reasoned, and fact-specific analysis consistent with the permissible § 3553 (a) factors. Warren, 720 F.3d at 332-33. Specifically, the district court addressed Medlock’s history and characteristics and found that deterring criminal conduct while protecting the public from Medlock was the dominant, overriding factor, considering the evidence that Medlock committed an assault. Medlock fails to show the court’s weighing of these factors was plainly unreasonable. In addition, although Medlock contends that he was entitled to consideration for acceptance of responsibility because he pleaded true to some of the violations, the district court did not err by declining to consider what amounts to a disagreement with the policy of the Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.