Case: 21-60639 Document: 00516267243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 5, 2022
No. 21-60639
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Travaris Devon Bishop,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:20-CR-107-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Travaris Devon Bishop pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He
argues on appeal that his 120-month sentence, which is an upward variance
from the guidelines range of 30-37 months, is substantively unreasonable.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60639 Document: 00516267243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 21-60639
Bishop properly preserved his challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence by arguing for a within-guidelines sentence
and objecting to the sentence imposed. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United
States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020). Thus, this court’s review is for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Though Bishop objects to the district court’s consideration of his
failure to financially support his children, this was but one factor relied on by
the court. Moreover, his argument that the court’s comment regarding his
failure to pay child support for his six children is an unconstitutional intrusion
on his right to bear children mischaracterizes the court’s statements at
sentencing. The court merely considered Bishop’s avoidance of his family
obligations, including financial support, in addressing his personal history
and characteristics, which is an appropriate factor for the court to consider.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); see also United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 437
(5th Cir. 2013).
Bishop also points to evidence in the record that he provided some
financial support to his children and argues that the district court’s
conclusion to the contrary was error and serves as an additional basis for
vacating his sentence. Though the presentence report reflected that Bishop
occasionally gave his longtime girlfriend cash for the care of their children,
the probation officer clarified at sentencing that after the couple separated,
Bishop stopped providing any financial support. Because the unrebutted
evidence at sentencing supported the district court’s conclusion that Bishop
did not financially support his children, Bishop’s argument that the court
relied on erroneous factual findings in sentencing him to the statutory
maximum is without merit. See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 455 (5th
Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 21-60639 Document: 00516267243 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 21-60639
Additionally, Bishop argues that the district court erred in varying
upward from the guidelines based, in part, on its “extrajudicial
investigation” into the community’s opinions about crime. The sentencing
judge’s comments regarding his personal knowledge of community concern
about crime is reasonably related to the statutory sentencing goal of
protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant.
See § 3553(a)(2)(C). The judge made the statements after reciting Bishop’s
criminal history, which included two house burglaries and a prior state
conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and after
expressing concern that a guidelines sentence, which would put Bishop
“back out on the streets real fast,” would not adequately protect the local
community from recidivists like Bishop. Moreover, as the Government
points out, the district court did not refer to its personal knowledge of the
community’s opinions on crime when explaining its reasons for imposing the
statutory maximum sentence.
Finally, Bishop argues that his 120-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable in that it represents a clear error in judgment by the district
court in balancing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Although Bishop “may
disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, [his]
argument that these factors should have been weighed differently is not a
sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342
(5th Cir. 2016).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3