United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20211 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Nolan Sharp, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-189-1 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and his 

successful appeal of his original sentence, Nolan Sharp was resentenced to 33 

months of imprisonment. The district court ordered his federal sentence to 

run concurrently with a previously imposed state sentence in Cause Number 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 19, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20211 Document: 00517006945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2023
No. 23-20211 

2 

1700807 and consecutively to the state sentence in Cause Number 1706501. 

Sharp appeals only the imposition of a consecutive sentence. 

Sharp first argues that the district court mistakenly believed it lacked 

discretion to impose a fully concurrent sentence. His request at sentencing 

for a fully concurrent sentence did not allege or attempt to correct any 

misunderstanding of the district court’s discretion, so plain error review 

applies to this issue. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 

361 (5th Cir. 2009). Sharp must show that (1) there is “an error or defect”; 

(2) that error was “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable 

dispute”; and (3) that the error “affected [his] substantial rights.” Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

Sharp primarily relies on a statement in a supplemental memorandum 

from the probation officer that the district court “shall” order the sentence 

to run consecutively to Cause Number 1706501. He also asserts that his 

argument is supported by the district court’s failure to explicitly discuss the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the factors in U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, 

comment. (n.4(A)). However, we conclude that the relevant statement in 

the memorandum clearly was part of a sentencing recommendation rather 

than any indication of a limitation on the district court’s discretion. Further, 

the supplemental memorandum cited U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) which explicitly 

states: “In any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, 

the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, 

partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of 

imprisonment . . . .” We also note that the discussions at sentencing clearly 

and repeatedly indicated to the district court that it had the discretion to 

impose either a consecutive or a concurrent sentence. Unlike in the cases 

cited by Sharp, we do not see any statement by the district court indicating 

that it believed it lacked the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. 

Case: 23-20211 Document: 00517006945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2023
No. 23-20211 

3 

Indeed, the presence of its discretion was clear. We conclude that Sharp has 

not shown any error, much less that it was clear or obvious. 

In addition, Sharp argues that the district court failed to comply with 

requirements that it consider the § 3553(a) factors or the § 5G1.3 factors 

when deciding between a concurrent or consecutive sentence. In a related 

argument, he argues that the district court failed to adequately explain its 

decision. Again, Sharp did not alert the district court to these issues, so we 

review for plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. 

We have held that, “[a]bsent a contrary indication in the record,” 

evidence that the court was made aware of relevant facts and arguments 

“implies that the district court was aware of and considered the § 3553(a) 

factors.” United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Our review of the record shows that the parties and probation officer 

provided the district court with facts and arguments relevant to most of the 

§ 3553(a) and § 5G1.3 factors. In addition, we conclude that the district 

court’s statements “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] 

has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising 

his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

356 (2007). For the above reasons, we conclude that Sharp has not shown 

that the district court plainly erred. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-20211 Document: 00517006945 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/19/2023