Case: 21-10873 Document: 00516276533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 12, 2022
No. 21-10873
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Cadena,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-631-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Cadena appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2119(2). He argues that his 300-month above-guidelines sentence
of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable because it was too harsh and
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10873 Document: 00516276533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-10873
his applicable guidelines range already accounted for the various factors that
the court cited as justification for an 179-month upward variance from the top
of that range.
Cadena’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence
was preserved, and our review is for abuse of discretion. See Holguin-
Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); United States v.
Scott, 821 F.3d 562, 567 (5th Cir. 2016). In reviewing an above-guidelines
sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court considers “the totality of
the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the [g]uidelines
range,” to determine whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support the
sentence. United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (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.” United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “Appellate review for substantive
reasonableness is highly deferential, because the sentencing court is in a
better position to find facts and judge their import under the § 3553(a) factors
with respect to a particular defendant.” Fraga, 704 F.3d at 439 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the
§ 3553(a) factors and emphasized the nature and circumstances of the
offense—which involved Cadena striking the victim with a fire extinguisher
multiple times on the head and other parts of her body resulting in severe,
near-death injuries—and the need to afford adequate deterrence, promote
respect for the law, protect the public, and provide just punishment.
Additionally, his argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
because the district court based his sentence on aggravating factors that were
2
Case: 21-10873 Document: 00516276533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 21-10873
already factored into his guidelines range is foreclosed. See United States v.
Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Cadena has not
shown that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Warren, 720 F.3d
at 332. Moreover, the extent of the variance in this case is similar to others
we have affirmed. See United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 561-63 (5th Cir.
2015); United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2011); United
States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Mejia-
Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2007).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3