IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11066

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DESTINY DAWN RAYNEA CHANDLER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-263-1

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Destiny Dawn Raynea Chandler appeals the 12-month sentence imposed 

following the revocation of her supervised release. Chandler argues that the 

district court committed procedural error by considering rehabilitation, an 

impermissible factor, in selecting her revocation sentence. She also argues 

that her 12-month revocation sentence, which is above the range recommended 

by the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statements, is substantively 

 

* 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

June 15, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11066 Document: 00514514382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2018
No. 17-11066

2

unreasonable. This court reviews a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon 

revocation of a term of supervised release under the “plainly unreasonable” 

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

After announcing the revocation sentence, the district court stated that 

Chandler’s “refusal to appropriately address her substance abuse problem 

makes her a risk to the community.” The court went on to explain that “[a] 

sentence of 12 months will serve to address the violation conduct committed by 

her and as a deterrent from further criminal activity.” Defense counsel 

objected to the revocation sentence “to the extent the [c]ourt lengthened the 

sentence for the purposes of fostering defendant’s rehabilitation.”

Nothing in the district court’s explanation at the revocation hearing 

indicates that it increased Chandler’s revocation sentence for purposes of 

rehabilitation or that rehabilitation was a “dominant factor” in the court’s 

selection of a sentence. See United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235, 240 (5th 

Cir. 2013). It is clear from the court’s statements at the revocation hearing 

that a desire to protect the public and to deter further criminal activity were 

the dominant factors in the court’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis. Chandler’s 

claim of procedural error is without merit.

Chandler claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the district court gave significant weight to an improper factor—the 

need for rehabilitation—and made a clear error in judgment in balancing the 

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 

2013). As already discussed, the district court’s revocation sentence was not 

improperly informed by Chandler’s need for rehabilitation and the court 

appropriately applied the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the facts of Chandler’s 

case. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11066 Document: 00514514382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2018