Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10173/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Eugene Priestley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10173

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TERRENCE EUGENE PRIESTLEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-10-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Terrence Eugene Priestley appeals the 18-month 

sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The 

district court varied upward from the six-to-twelve-month guidelines range, 

reasoning that the sentence imposed “addresse[d] the issues of adequate 

deterrence and protection of the public.” 

 

* 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

October 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10173 Document: 00513220590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
No. 15-10173

2

Priestley did not timely object to the sentence when it was imposed, so 

we review his claims under the deferential plain error standard. See United 

States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we evaluate 

the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of its revocation sentence

pursuant to Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 

261. The district court noted deterrence and protection of the public, thereby 

explicitly considering those 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors that the court deemed 

relevant to its determination. See § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). The sentencing court 

committed no error, plain or otherwise. 

In any event, no error affected Priestley’s substantial rights. His 

assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, the record of the sentencing 

proceedings in this case does permit a meaningful appellate review. See 

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264. Nothing in the record suggests that a more 

thorough explanation would have resulted in a shorter sentence, or that the 

district court considered any improper factor, or that it would impose a 

different sentence on remand. Id. at 264-65.

Finally, Priestley’s argument that Whitelaw was wrongly decided—

concededly raised to preserve that contention for further review—is 

unavailing. We may not overrule Whitelaw absent a superseding decision by

the Supreme Court or by this court en banc. See United States v. Lipscomb, 

299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10173 Document: 00513220590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2015