Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50146/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pat Patterson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50146

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAT PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CR-43-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pat Patterson appeals the 24-month term of imprisonment imposed 

following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Since Patterson did not object to his sentence, review is for plain error. 

See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). The 24-month 

revocation sentence is above the maximum Guidelines sentence of 13 months 

 

* 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 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50146 Document: 00513245371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
No. 15-50146

2

but below the statutory maximum sentence of 44 months. “We have routinely 

affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the 

sentence equals the statutory maximum.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). This case does not warrant a different result. See id. at 

333. The district court took Patterson’s drug addiction into account by 

recommending that he receive treatment while incarcerated, but it placed more 

weight on his pattern of failing to comply with his conditions of supervised 

release. This was the third time Patterson had violated the condition of 

supervised release. To the extent that Patterson argues that this amounted to 

a consideration of prohibited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and assuming 

arguendo that this argument is not waived by virtue of inadequate briefing, 

any error was not plain. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); 

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Indeed, Patterson does not 

even identify which improper factor the district allegedly considered in 

deciding this sentence. Patterson thus has failed to show that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable, much less plainly unreasonable. See United 

States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-50146 Document: 00513245371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2015