Whether the panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion by the rubberstamp of the erroneous and impermissible conclusion of erstwhile counsel's notion that the issue of the substantial unreasonableness of his sentence was not cert' worthy

No question identified. : ! CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHETHER THE PANEL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY THE RUBBERSTAMP OF THE ERRONEOUS AND IMPERMISSIBLE CONCLUSION OF ERSTWHILE COUNSEL'S NOTION THAT THE ISSUE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL UNREASONABLENESS OF HIS SENTENCE WAS NOT CERT' WORTHY, UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 10(a) OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES. STANDARD OF REVIEW When courts like the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, consider the substantive reasonableness of the length of a sentence, it does so under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009)(citing Gall v. United states, 552 U.S. 32, 51 (2007). A district Court does not have to "categorically rehearse the relevant factors” or give “lengthy explanations" of the Section 3553(a) factors. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010). A district court need only provide "enough explanation of the court's reasoning to allow for meaningful appellate review." Id. at 966. A defendant need not object to preserve an attack on the length of the sentence imposed if he alleges only that a district court erred in weighing the section 3553(a) factors. Id. (citing United States v. Wiley, 509 F.3d 474, 477 (8th Cir.. 2007). "(W)here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward further. United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. Cir. 2009)(per curiam)(emphasis added)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). DISCUSSION The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in agreeing with Lopez's erstwhile counsel, about the issue of Substantive unreasonableness of a sentence, is not one that the Supreme Court particularly cares for, is refuted by the fact there are numerous examples throughout the federal system, where for instance, Guidelines Sentences and Above Guidelines Sentences that have been teversed on appeal are prevalent and remain relevant. In United states v. Valdez, 500 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit, for example held that a 108month sentence was substantively unreasonable or at a minimum, the judge's reason from imposing such h a high sentence were inadequatein a case where the-departure guideline maximum was 71 months. The defendant was convicted of counterfeiting. The victim of the offense was the district court clerk's office. the fact that the court was the victim, however, was not a proper basis for such a variance. In United States v. Plate, 839 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2016), the defendant pled guilty to embezzlement. The restitution amount was approximately $152,000.00. At sentencing, the defendant brought her entire net worth to court ($45,000). The trial court said that probation was a reasonable disposition, if full restitution has been paid, but given the failure to pay restitution, the court imposed a guideline sentence of 27 months. The Eleventh Circuit reversed; it is not proper to give dispositive weight, in evaluating the Section 3553(a) factors, to the issue of restitution. In fact, the inability to pay restitution is not one of the factors identified in Section 3553(a). the appellate court held that the guideline sentence, therefore, was substantively unreasonable. One of the first decisions in the Eleventh Circuit to consider how the appellate court should engage in appellate review of sentence was United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2005). The court concluded that though the guidelines are only advisory, the court will still undertake a careful review of the Guideline calculation; "On other words, as wax the case before Booker, the district court must calculate the guidelines range accurately. A misrepresentation of the Guidelines by a district court "effectively means that (the district court) has not properly consulted the Guidelines..." After it has made this calculation, the district court may i impose a more severe or mor