Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60442/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60442-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Twmell Lott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60441

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TWMELL AUSTIN LOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Consolidated with 19-60442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TWMELL LOTT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:13-CR-7-1

USDC No. 2:05-CR-11-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

* 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

March 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60442 Document: 00515327404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2020
No. 19-60441

c/w No. 19-60442

2

Twmell Austin Lott appeals (1) the 60-month prison term imposed upon

the revocation of supervised release for his 2006 conviction of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and (2) the concurrent 

24-month prison term imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for 

his 2014 conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. While he argues 

that the 60-month sentence is substantively unreasonable, he does not brief 

any argument challenging the 24-month sentence. Any challenge he seeks to 

raise to the 24-month sentence is thus waived. See United States v. Edwards, 

303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002).

The record reflects that the district court determined that the 60-month 

sentence was appropriate based on permissible sentencing considerations, 

namely, to deter future criminal conduct, protect the community, and control 

Lott’s recidivist conduct. See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 684-86

(5th Cir. 2018). We must give due deference to the district court’s sentencing 

decision, and we decline to reweigh the applicable sentencing factors. See id. 

With respect to challenges to substantive reasonableness, we have routinely 

upheld revocation sentences exceeding the advisory policy range, even where, 

as here, the sentence equals the statutory maximum. See United States v. 

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

Lott’s arguments that the 60-month sentence is contrary to the spirit of 

the Constitution’s protections against double jeopardy and violates his 

legitimate expectation of finality with respect to his drug-conspiracy sentence 

are unavailing. See United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Under the totality of the circumstances, the 60-month sentence was not an 

abuse of discretion. See Sanchez, 900 F.3d at 684-86.

The district court’s revocation judgments are AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-60442 Document: 00515327404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2020