Case: 22-30256 Document: 00516644149 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-30256
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jeremy Levanda,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CR-86-3
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jeremy Levanda appeals the 54-month, above-guidelines sentence
imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting, and use
of a communication facility and aiding and abetting. On appeal, Levanda
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30256 Document: 00516644149 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2023
No. 22-30256
primarily asserts that the district court plainly erred by imposing an upward
variance that was based on his need for rehabilitation from his drug addiction
in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
In Tapia, the Supreme Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a)
“precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to
promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia, 564 U.S. at 332. In this case,
the district court did not lengthen his prison term based on his need for drug
rehabilitation; instead, the district court explained that an upward variance
was warranted because a sentence in the guidelines range would not
adequately reflect the seriousness of Levanda’s crimes, promote respect for
the law, provide just punishment or adequate deterrence, or protect the
public from his future crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Because
Levanda has not shown that his rehabilitative needs were a dominant factor
in the district court’s decision to impose an above-guidelines sentence, he
has failed to show error, plain or otherwise, in connection with his Tapia
claim. See United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana, 957 F.3d 576, 579 (5th Cir.
2020).
Levanda’s arguments that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court gave undue weight to his criminal history, which
was already accounted for as part of his criminal history score, and because
his sentence reflects an unwarranted sentence disparity between him and his
codefendants likewise fail. A district court has the discretion to determine
that the guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more
factors and may conclude that a within-guidelines sentence would be
insufficient to serve the objectives of sentencing. United States v. Lopez-
Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, as noted, the district
court explained its sentence in terms of several of the § 3553(a) factors and
determined that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to achieve the
goals of sentencing, and Levanda fails to show that his sentence actually
2
Case: 22-30256 Document: 00516644149 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/13/2023
No. 22-30256
represents an unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants. See
United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).
Nothing in the record reflects that the district court failed to account
for a factor that should have received significant weight or that it gave
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, and the sentence does
not represent a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.
See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 400-01 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
3