United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30721

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alvin Kincerely Law, Jr.

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:17-CR-240-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alvin Kincerely Law, Jr., appeals the 24-month above-guidelines 

sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, which 

was part of his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the revocation sentence was 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30721 Document: 00516378286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 21-30721

2

based upon the seriousness of a battery charge pending against him in state 

court and the district court’s desire to punish him for that offense and that 

the district court therefore improperly relied upon a 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factor in determining the sentence. He also argues that the 

sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable because the district court 

failed to give appropriate weight to the correctly calculated guidelines range 

and gave too much weight to the pending battery charge.

To the extent Law argues that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable because the district court gave significant weight to an 

improper sentencing factor, our review is for plain error because he did not 

raise that argument before the district court. See United States v. Cano, 981 

F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2020). He otherwise properly preserved a challenge 

to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Id. Sentences imposed 

upon revocation of supervised release are reviewed under the plainly 

unreasonable standard when an issue has been preserved for appeal. Id.

Excluded from consideration when determining a revocation sentence 

are those factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A), which are the need for the 

sentence imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote 

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” See 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The district court did not expressly reference the § 3553(a)(2)(A) prohibited 

factors, and, even assuming, arguendo, that it did implicitly consider those 

factors, it also implicitly considered the nature and circumstances of the 

supervised release violations; Law’s history and characteristics, including his 

repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervision; the need for 

deterrence; and the need to protect the public from further crimes by Law. 

Those are permissible considerations in a revocation hearing. See

§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C); United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 

684-85 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, even if the district court considered 

Case: 21-30721 Document: 00516378286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
No. 21-30721

3

retribution as an additional justification for the sentence, there is no 

indication that a § 3553(a)(2)(A) factor played a dominant role here, and Law

therefore fails to show the requisite plain (clear or obvious) error. See United 

States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). 

The extent of the upward variance — from a guidelines range of eight 

to 14 months to a sentence of 24 months — does not constitute an abuse of 

discretion; we have routinely upheld larger variances. See, e.g., United States 

v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012). Law fails to show that his 

revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. See Cano, 981 F.3d at 425.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30721 Document: 00516378286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2022