United States v. Pearson, 202 F. App'x 769 (5th Cir. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Pearson, 202 F. App'x 769 (5th Cir. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Kenneth Wayne PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant
06-30199.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 19, 2006.
Unpublished opinion
202 F. App'x 769
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, Richard Allan Willis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Wayne Joseph Blanchard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Davis, Barksdale, Benavides.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Wayne Pearson appeals the sentence he received after this court remanded his case for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Pearson argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines by not granting him a two-level reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for his mitigating role. Given that Pearson’s role was not peripheral to the Brown Drug Organization, the denial of such an adjustment was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005).

The district court’s 188-month sentence, which was a deviation from the Guidelines, was not an abuse of discretion. The district court articulated its reasons for the sentence and those reasons reflected the totality of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 358 n. 5 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.