IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11370

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MARIA DELSOCORRO RENTARIA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:16-CR-209-1 

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Delsocorro Rentaria appeals the district court’s judgment 

revoking her supervised release and imposing a sentence of four months to be 

followed by a 24-month term of supervised release. Although Rentaria has 

been released from prison, her appeal is not moot because it is possible that 

the district court will alter her remaining term of supervised release if it is 

 

* 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

July 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11370 Document: 00514065389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2017
No. 16-11370

2 

determined that she served excess prison time as a result of the district court’s 

error. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2006).

 Rentaria contends that the district court erred in failing to apply the 

exception to mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) based on her 

failure to pass drug tests on two occasions. She asserts that the district court 

committed a significant procedural error by relying on a factor that Congress 

intended to exclude from consideration under § 3583(d). 

This court reviews the district court’s statutory interpretation de novo. 

United States v. Courtney, 979 F.2d 45, 48 (5th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to 

§ 3583(g), revocation of supervised release is mandatory if, inter alia, the 

defendant possesses a controlled substance or tests positive for drug use more 

than three times in one year. However, § 3583(d) provides an exception to 

mandatory revocation under § 3583(g), requiring the district court to consider 

“the availability of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs, or an 

individual’s current or past participation in such programs, . . . when 

considering any action against a defendant who fails a drug test.” § 3583(d). 

Rentaria was subject to mandatory revocation because she admitted 

using marijuana on two occasions, thus implicitly admitting the possession 

thereof. United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 181, 182 (5th Cir. 1992). The district 

court’s comments reflect that it was aware of the exception to imposing a term 

of imprisonment upon mandatory revocation but its statements also showed 

that, based on Rentaria’s conduct, the application of the exception was not 

warranted. Contrary to Rentaria’s arguments, the district court considered 

factors other than Rentaria’s mere failure to pass two drug tests. 

Moreover, the district court stated that, in light of the record before it, it 

would have revoked Rentaria’s supervised release whether or not revocation 

was mandatory. Thus, any error regarding the nature of the revocation was 

 Case: 16-11370 Document: 00514065389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2017
No. 16-11370

3 

harmless. See United States v. Martinez-Romero, 817 F.3d 917, 924-25 (5th 

Cir. 2016). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-11370 Document: 00514065389 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2017