IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30052

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 13-30131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES QUINNEY HAMPTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:99-CR-20103-1

USDC No. 2:04-CR-20111-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-30052 Document: 00512461374 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2013
No. 13-30052

c/w No. 13-30131

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Hampton appeals the above-range sentence of 48 months imposed 

following the district court’s revocation of his term of supervised release. He 

began serving the term after completing his sentence of imprisonment for his 

conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 

Hampton also appealed from a 12-month revocation sentence imposed 

based on his violation of the conditions of supervised release arising out of his 

conviction for conspiracy to possess contraband in prison. That case was 

consolidated with the instant drug case on appeal. However, Hampton has not 

challenged the 12-month revocation sentence in his brief. Thus, he has 

abandoned his challenge in appeal No. 13-30131. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Hampton argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the 

district court procedurally erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for 

departing or varying upward to a sentence that was double the advisory 

guidelines range sentence. Because Hampton failed to raise this argument in 

the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court reviewed the charged violation; considered the 

arguments of the parties, including the mitigating circumstances presented by 

Hampton; and provided specific reasons for rejecting Hampton’s contention 

that his inability to obtain employment was a mitigating circumstance. The 

district court made it clear that it believed that Hampton could have obtained 

* 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.

2

 

 Case: 13-30052 Document: 00512461374 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2013
No. 13-30052

c/w No. 13-30131

the right to open a business using legal means and that Hampton’s reliance on 

illegal conduct was a continuation of his history of engaging in criminal 

conduct. The record reflects that the district court provided adequate reasons 

for the sentence imposed, and therefore, it committed no procedural error, 

plain or otherwise. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 

2009).

Hampton also argues that his 48-month sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because he committed a single violation during his supervised 

release, which did not harm anyone and provided him with the means to 

comply with the condition of supervised release that he obtain employment. 

We review a preserved objection to a revocation sentence’s substantive 

reasonableness under the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. 

Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). We first examine the substantive 

reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion, and, if it is 

unreasonable, we consider whether the error was obvious under the existing 

law. Id. Hampton’s assertion that the sentence was plainly unreasonable 

because he committed a single technical violation of his supervised release fails 

because, as he acknowledged, his conduct involved the commission of the 

crimes of identity theft and bank fraud. The district court properly considered 

the illegal nature of Hampton’s fraudulent scheme and his history of failing to 

comply with the conditions of parole and supervised release, which were 

relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court also considered the 

mitigating circumstances alleged by Hampton but found that Hampton could 

have overcome his issues by employing lawful means. Based on the totality of 

circumstances, the district court’s imposition of a sentence above the advisory 

guidelines range did not reflect an abuse of discretion. It follows that it was 

3

 Case: 13-30052 Document: 00512461374 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2013
No. 13-30052

c/w No. 13-30131

not plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843. The judgments are

AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 13-30052 Document: 00512461374 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/05/2013