Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10517/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10517-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travon Nikeith Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10517

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRAVON NIKEITH JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-117-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Travon Nikeith Johnson appeals his aboveguidelines sentence of 24 months of imprisonment and 30 months of supervised 

release that he received on revocation of his initial term of supervised release. 

In reaching its decision during the revocation and sentencing hearing, the 

district court stated that it considered his criminal history, “his ongoing 

activity in assaulting a family member,” and the sentencing factors under 

* 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

February 26, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10517 Document: 00515321148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
No. 19-10517

2

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although the district court initially announced its 

sentence before permitting allocution, the court withdrew its sentence after

Johnson objected, heard allocution, then imposed the same sentence.

Johnson raises two issues on appeal. He first contends that the district 

court deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to allocute by making its 

statements to him that tended to indicate that he had an “uphill battle” in 

trying to change the court’s mind. 

Plain error review applies because Johnson did nothing to indicate that 

he “took exception” to how the district court handled his initial allocution 

objection. See United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 755-56 (5th Cir. 2007). 

There was no “clear or obvious” error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009). The district court was permitted to state its intentions to impose 

a particular sentence before giving Johnson the opportunity to speak. United 

States v. Pittsinger, 874 F.3d 446, 452 (5th Cir. 2017). It is not clear or obvious 

that the district court’s language constituted “a definitive and conclusive 

statement regarding the sentence to be imposed.” Id. at 453. 

Johnson next maintains that the district court failed to consider the 

extent of the deviation from the applicable guidelines range in sentencing him 

to an above-guidelines sentence of imprisonment after ascertaining the correct 

range. Although Johnson concedes that a court which initially chooses a 

sentence above an 18-month maximum range probably would not sentence 

beneath a 12-month maximum on the same facts, he argues that it does not 

follow that the ultimate sentence should necessarily be the same. 

Assuming arguendo that the district court committed a clear or obvious 

error, Johnson still fails to show that such an error affected his substantial 

rights. The Supreme Court has said that “[i]n most cases a defendant who has 

shown that the district court mistakenly deemed applicable an incorrect, 

Case: 19-10517 Document: 00515321148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2020
No. 19-10517

3

higher Guidelines range has demonstrated a reasonable probability of a 

different outcome.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1346 

(2016). Here, however, the district court considered the correct guidelines 

range before imposing Johnson’s sentence and had chosen its initial sentence 

with reference to the statutory limits on the revocation sentence and not the 

applicable guidelines range. In sentencing Johnson, the district court

emphasized his criminal history and “his ongoing activity in assaulting a 

family member” as opposed to the sentencing range. Johnson has not pointed 

to anything in the record that tends to show that the outcome would have been 

different had the district court explicitly considered the extent of the deviation. 

As such, he has failed to show that the district court plainly erred. His 

sentence is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10517 Document: 00515321148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2020