Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-24-2021

Case Style:

United States of America v. Brandon Brown

Case Number: 21-30143

Judge: Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

New Orleans, LA - Criminal defense Lawyer Directory


New Orleans, LA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with conspiracy to commit the offense of using, carrying, brandishing, and discharging firearms in relation to a crime of violence charge.

First, Brown argues that he, unlike his co-defendant, never brandished
a firearm during a robbery and that the district court should not have imposed
an above-guidelines sentence in his case based on concerns that his codefendant received a longer aggregate sentence. Next, Brown argues that the
district court should not have relied on the fact that he gave a firearm to his
co-defendant because that fact was already accounted for by the Sentencing
Guidelines in his offense level calculations. Last, Brown contends that the
district court erred in finding that he organized the robberies when he did not
receive a role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.
Brown has not shown that the court plainly erred. See United States v.
Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying a plain error standard of
review when defendant did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence).
His arguments do not show that the district court failed to account for a factor
that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440
F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, the factors noted by Brown are all
permissible for consideration under § 3553(a) in determining whether a nonguidelines sentence is warranted. See § 3553(a)(6) (need to avoid
unwarranted disparities); United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir.
2010) (factors already accounted for by the Guidelines); United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005) (relevant conduct); Smith, 440 F.3d
at 706, 708-09 (factors not accounted for by the Guidelines). Although
Brown’s sentence is 27 months above the top of his guidelines range, we have
upheld greater variances. See, e.g., Key, 599 F.3d at 475-76

Outcome: Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case