Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41595/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derek Parra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41595

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEREK PARRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-159-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derek Parra appeals the 48-month prison sentence that the district court 

imposed upon revoking his supervised release. The sentence was above the 

advisory range of eight to 14 months. 

Parra argues that the evidence that he committed assault while on 

supervised release was inconclusive and that the district court should have 

given less weight to that allegation. However, Parra fails to show that the 

 

* 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 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41595 Document: 00513712636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2016
No. 15-41595

2

district court’s factual findings with respect to his revocation sentencing were 

not plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 

38 F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994). 

We review his remaining claims for plain error as he did not object to the 

sentence as procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable. See United 

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326-27, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Although Parra 

argues that the district court imposed the revocation sentence as punishment 

for his assault offense, cf. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843-44 (5th 

Cir. 2011), the court properly considered the nature of Parra’s violations, along 

with Parra’s history of violence against women and children, as relevant to the 

proper statutory factors on which it relied, including deterrence and 

incapacitation, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). The 

court considered the relevant Guideline policy statement in sentencing Parra,

see United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994), and adequately 

explained the chosen sentence, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 

(2007). The district court’s reasons justified the 48-month sentence. See Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Parra fails to show error, plain or 

otherwise. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41595 Document: 00513712636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2016