Case: 22-10339 Document: 00516493026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 3, 2022
No. 22-10339 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Vashon Rayford,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-289-1
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Vashon Rayford appeals the sentence imposed following the
revocation of his supervised release. His sentence is within the suggested
sentencing range and below the statutory maximum.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-10339 Document: 00516493026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-10339
Rayford argues that his 11-month sentence represents a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors because his failure to meet with
his probation officer and absconding from supervision were attributable to his
homelessness. He contends that the mitigating value of his circumstances
merited a lower sentence.
The record reflects that the district court’s justification for imposing
the revocation sentence was reasoned, fact-specific, and consistent with the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d
321, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court undertook an individualized
assessment of the facts and concluded that a sentence of 11 months in prison
was proper to satisfy the aims of § 3553(a). There is no indication that the
district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant
weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a
clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See Warren, 720
F.3d at 332.
His assertion that the sentence does not reflect an accurate evaluation
or application of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors reflects nothing more than
his disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the factors. His
displeasure with the weight given to particular factors does not justify
reversal. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. The fact that we could reasonably
have held that a different sentence was proper does not render the sentence
unreasonable. Id. The record otherwise reflects that the decision to impose
an 11-month sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 332-33.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2