Case: 20-30586 Document: 00515867323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 18, 2021
No. 20-30586 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Nobryan McGee,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:12-CR-292-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Nobryan McGee’s 2013 sentence for failing to register pursuant to the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act included a lifetime term of
supervised release. His supervised release now having been revoked, he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30586 Document: 00515867323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2021
No. 20-30586
contends that the 24-month revocation sentence, which exceeds the
guidelines range of five to 11 months, is substantively unreasonable.
We review McGee’s revocation sentence to determine whether it is
“plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th
Cir. 2011). We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an
abuse of discretion, examining the totality of the circumstances. United
States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018). “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.” United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 827
(2020). “If a sentence is unreasonable, then we consider whether the error
was obvious under existing law.” Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
In addition to the applicable guidelines range, the district court based
the sentence, either explicitly or implicitly, upon several other 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, including McGee’s history and characteristics as a sex
offender, the need to deter him from future violations, and the need to
protect the public from his further crimes. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(C), and
(4)(B). McGee’s argument that the district court should have afforded the
guidelines range more weight amounts to nothing more than a disagreement
with the district court’s balancing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, which
we will not reweigh. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th
Cir. 2013). Nor does the extent of the upward variance constitute an abuse
of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th
Cir. 2012). McGee fails to show that his revocation sentence is plainly
unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
AFFIRMED.
2