Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30842/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30842-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jahvar Hooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30842

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAHVAR HOOKS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CR-24-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea to maliciously conveying false information 

concerning alleged attempts to damage or destroy buildings by means of 

explosives, Jahvar Hooks was sentenced to a term of supervised release. Upon 

his concession that he violated one of the release conditions, the district court 

revoked Hooks’s supervised release and sentenced him to 14 months of 

imprisonment. He now appeals, and we affirm.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30842 Document: 00513562072 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
No. 15-30842

2

Hooks argues, first, that the district court erred in revoking his 

supervised release based on a single technical violation committed in an effort 

to obtain needed mental health treatment and, second, that his revocation 

sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it punishes him for being 

mentally ill. Because he did not object in the district court either to the 

revocation or to the resulting sentence, we review the district court’s decision 

for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United 

States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007).

A defendant’s supervised release may be revoked, and a term of 

imprisonment imposed, if the district court finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the defendant violated any condition of his release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3); see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2), p.s. The record supports Hooks’s

concession that, by leaving Exodus House without notice and attempting to be 

admitted to a hospital, he violated one of the express conditions of his release. 

Because the district court had clear statutory authority to revoke Hooks’s 

supervised release based on the admitted violation, its decision to do so was 

not error, let alone clear and obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

Hooks’s argument that revocation in this case frustrates the aims of supervised 

release amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s exercise of its 

discretion, which does not warrant reversal on appeal. See United States v. 

Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

Hooks’s Eighth Amendment argument is equally unavailing. Section 

3583(e)(3) permits revocation of a defendant’s supervised release upon a 

finding that he violated a condition of release, a finding based on the 

defendant’s actions and not his status. Cf. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 

 Case: 15-30842 Document: 00513562072 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
No. 15-30842

3

660, 666-68 (1962). Accordingly, Hooks fails to demonstrate plain error in 

relation to his revocation sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30842 Document: 00513562072 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/23/2016