IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10155

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMESON WAYNE BEARDEN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-31-3

Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jameson Wayne Bearden appeals the 18-month sentence imposed on 

revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to 

adequately explain the revocation sentence and consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors and imposed a substantively unreasonable revocation 

sentence.

 

* 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

September 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10155 Document: 00514659313 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2018
No. 18-10155

2

We review Bearden’s unpreserved claims of procedural and substantive 

error for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 

(5th Cir. 2009). Bearden faults the district court for failing to explicitly 

consider all the applicable § 3553(a) factors. However, implicit consideration 

of the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient. See United States v. Brooker, 858 F.3d 

983, 987 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 346 (2017). The district court heard 

Bearden’s arguments in mitigation of sentence, was aware of the guidelines 

range, and cited two aggravating factors. This record indicates that the district 

court implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. Therefore, Bearden has not 

shown any error in this respect. Moreover, given that implicit consideration of

the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient, see id., any error in this respect is subject to 

reasonable dispute and is therefore not clear or obvious, see Puckett v. United 

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

When the district court imposed a sentence above the guidelines range 

and cited the § 3553(a) factors of deterrence and protection of the public, the 

district court implicitly reasoned that Bearden, a person who admittedly used 

drugs within two months of his release from imprisonment and had a history 

of doing so, needed an above-guidelines sentence to deter him and to protect 

the public. This explanation was adequate. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 

338, 356-59 (2007). Moreover, there is no clear or obvious error in this respect. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

Contrary to Bearden’s argument, the cost of his incarceration and 

overcrowding in federal facilities do not render his sentence substantively

unreasonable. Also unavailing are his arguments that the district court gave 

too much weight to the § 3553(a) factors of deterrence and protection of the 

public, gave no weight to the guidelines range or the other § 3553(a) factors, 

and failed to justify the sentence. The 18-month revocation sentence is above 

 Case: 18-10155 Document: 00514659313 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2018
No. 18-10155

3

the maximum guidelines sentence of 12 months but below the statutory 

maximum sentence of 24 months. We have routinely upheld the substantive 

reasonableness of similar sentences. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 

321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). This case does not warrant a different result, 

especially given the deference owed to the district court’s consideration of the 

§ 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10155 Document: 00514659313 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2018