The district court deviated from the advisory guidelines range of 6-12 months to impose a non-guideline sentence of 21 months. We review sentences for "unreasonableness" in light of the sentencing considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 2007). The guidelines provide but a "rough approximation" of a sentence that will meet all the objectives of § 3553(a).
We review sentences for reasonableness in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 2007). A reviewing court must first ensure that the sentence is not unreasonable due to a procedural error "such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range."
The district court thereby laid the individualized, case-specific foundation on which an above-Guidelines sentence is justified. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 535 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming above-Guidelines sentence where "the district court deviated upwards because it felt that the facts in this case were more egregious than . . . normal"); Diehl, 775 F.3d at 724. We will neither reweigh the sentencing factors nor substitute our judgment for that of the district court.
He has not established the existence of any sentencing disparity because he does not cite any evidence that lower sentences have been imposed in the cases of his coconspirators or in cases with facts substantially similar to his case. See United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 535 n.4 (5th Cir. 2007). Monjaras-Pichardo's argument amounts to a "disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed" and does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
Finally, Hammond has failed to show that his sentence creates an unwarranted disparity. See United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 536 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2007). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Soto-Martinez's citation to "one case in which a lower sentence was imposed clearly cannot establish an unwarranted disparity under [ ] § 3553(a)(6)." United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 536 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED.
(quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 595)). Mondragon-Santiago argues that these holdings significantly alter prior law, and cites several of our pre-Gall and Kimbrough cases. Indeed, before Gall and Kimbrough, we held that "a factor already accounted for in the advisory Guideline range is an improper factor to consider for a non-Guideline sentence," United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 535 (5th Cir. 2007), and that " Booker does not give sentencing courts the discretion to impose a non-Guideline sentence based on the courts' disagreement with Congressional and Sentencing Commission policy," United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006). See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 387-88 n. 10 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 2007). USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) sets the base offense level at 20 for defendants who have committed the instant offense subsequent to a felony conviction for a Crime of violence.
The district court's comments regarding Martin's criminal history and history of flight from law enforcement did not double-count factors already considered in the guidelines range; rather, these comments reflect the court's opinion that those factors were extraordinarily egregious here. Cf. United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 535-36 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and its comments about Martin's criminal history and manner of earning a living are not implausible in light of the record as a whole.
See United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 811 (5th Cir. 2008).Williams cites the following cases in this respect: United States v. Walters, 490 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Perrin, 478 F.3d 672, 678 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 497 F.3d 531, 535-36 (5th Cir. 2007). Williams, 517 F.3d at 811 n. 55. Appellant cites the same cases and also United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Leatch, 482 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Kimbrough, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2008); and United States v. Guidry, 462 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2006).