United States v. Brown, 21-30137

Nathaniel Leon Brown pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
Underlying conduct included an alleged kidnapping of his pregnant girlfriend; the district court rejected a § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) cross‑reference and calculated the Guidelines under § 2K2.1(a).
The Guidelines range was 27–33 months; the court imposed an upward variance to 84 months (below the 10‑year statutory maximum).
Brown preserved his challenge to substantive reasonableness by requesting a within‑Guidelines sentence and objecting to the imposed sentence.
The district court explained the variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including prior domestic‑violence conduct and Brown's criminal history.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed preserved substantive‑reasonableness claims for abuse of discretion and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't)	Defendant's Argument (Brown)	Held
Whether Brown's 84‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Sentence justified by § 3553(a) factors and within district court's discretion	Variance excessive and unreasonable	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court acted within § 3553(a) bounds
Whether underlying conduct was already accounted for by the Guidelines	Cross‑reference to a higher offense was not applied; Guidelines range properly calculated	Sentence double‑counted the same conduct already reflected in Guidelines	Rejected Brown: court sustained objection to cross‑reference and used § 2K2.1(a) range
Whether district court improperly considered prior domestic‑violence incident	Prior bad acts relevant to history and § 3553(a) consideration	Reliance on that incident was irrelevant and improper	Rejected Brown: prior conduct may be considered under § 3553(a)(1) as history
Whether court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors (substance abuse)	Court was aware and weighed mitigation against other factors	Court ignored or misweighed substance‑abuse mitigation	Rejected Brown: disagreement over balancing insufficient to show abuse of discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (requesting a specific sentence preserves appellate review)
United States v. Delgado‑Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Cisneros‑Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Guidelines application; clear‑error review of facts)
United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2011) (prior criminal conduct may inform § 3553(a) history)
United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (disagreement over factor balancing does not show abuse of discretion)
United States v. Lopez‑Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court may vary from Guidelines if it finds them unbalanced)
United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (upholding substantial upward variance)
United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005) (affirming significant upward variance)
United States v. Gerezano‑Rosales, 692 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2012) (deference to district court's fact‑finding and § 3553(a) judgments)