Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10328/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10328-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly M. Stapleton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-10328

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kelly M. Stapleton, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-157-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kelly M. Stapleton pleaded true to violating various conditions of his 

supervised release, including possessing a controlled substance. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). The district court imposed 10 months of imprisonment, 

to be followed by 20 years of supervised release. Stapleton appeals the 

reimposition of supervised release, contending for the first time that the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10328 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024
No. 24-10328

2

district court impermissibly considered the seriousness of his underlying 

criminal offense when imposing his revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a)(2)(A) & 3583(c), (h).

Reviewing for plain error, we are unpersuaded by Stapleton’s 

argument because revocation was mandatory under § 3583(g), and we have 

held that district courts do not clearly err by considering a retributive factor 

at § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing a mandatory revocation sentence. See 

United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607, 609 (5th Cir. 2015); see also United States 

v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 553 n.12 (5th Cir. 2020). In any event, the 

challenged statement regarding the underlying offense is one brief remark, 

and Stapleton’s reliance on United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th 

Cir. 2015), is therefore misplaced. Here, the district court repeatedly 

commented on Stapleton’s history of noncompliance with the conditions of 

his supervised release and expressed its concern for protecting the public, 

suggesting that the challenged statement was merely an additional reason, 

and not a dominant factor, for the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) & 

(a)(2)(C); Rivera, 784 F.3d at 1017. In sum, Stapleton has not met his burden 

of establishing a clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-10328 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024