Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Caroll Andrew YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11426 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 18, 2017
    Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Erin Brennan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Caroll Andrew Young appeals from the sentence of 18 months of imprisonment and 18 months of supervised release imposed by the district court following its revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Young challenges the sentence as (1) procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to give adequate reasons for imposing a sentence that exceeded the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines policy statements, and (2) substantively unreasonable because it was based on an erroneous finding that he violated his supervised release by failing to follow the probation officer’s instructions regarding alcohol abuse treatment.

Because Young’s general objection to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence was insufficient to preserve the specific procedural challenge he raises on appeal, we review his procedural challenge only for plain error. United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). To prevail on plain-error review, a defendant must show that an error occurred, that the error was clear or obvious, and that the error affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135-36, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If the defendant makes that'showing, we have the discretion to correct the error, but only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks arid citation omitted).

When a district court imposes a revocation sentence that falls outside of the range recommended by the Guidelines’ policy statements, it must provide “some explanation” for its decision. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2009). Even if the district court committed a clear or obvious error in this regard, Young has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that it is the defendant’s burden to establish each of the prongs of the plain-error test).

Because Young preserved his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion, examining the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). “[A] sentencing error occurs when an impermissible consideration is a dominant factor in the court’s revocation sentence, but not when it is merely a secondary concern or an additional justification for the sentence.” United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015).

Even if it was error for the district court to find that Young violated the conditions of his release when he failed to find an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor and attend two AA meetings per week, see 18 U.S.C. § 3601; United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 567-68 (5th Cir. 2016), the record does not show that this particular violation was a dominant factor in the revocation sentence, see Rivera, 784 F.3d at 1017.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 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.