USA v. Taylor, No. 23-60484 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-60484 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-60484 Summary Calendar ____________ May 3, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Robert Taylor, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:22-CR-115-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Robert Taylor pleaded guilty, with a plea agreement, to interstate transportation of a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The district court sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and $7000 in restitution. Taylor appeals his sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness in view of the 18 U.S.C. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60484 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2024 § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). We first determine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error. Id. at 51. Then, if necessary, we “proceed to the second step and review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 547 (5th Cir. 2012). Taylor argues that the sentence was procedurally flawed because the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Taylor concedes that our review is for plain error. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court “should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court considered Taylor’s arguments for a downward variance, rejected them, and had a reasoned basis for exercising its authority. See id. Next, Taylor argues the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it denied his motion for a downward variance. We review the denial of a downward variance for abuse of discretion and recognize that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020). To rebut the presumption, a defendant must show “that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Taylor has not made this showing. AFFIRMED.
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.
