United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10824

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gregory P. Damm, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-4-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gregory P. Damm challenges the five-year additional term of 

supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(h). He contends that the district court erroneously believed 

that the five-year term was the statutorily mandated minimum and that the 

error affected his substantial rights and, therefore, was not harmless. See 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10824 Document: 00516734013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-10824

2

United States v. Campos, 922 F.3d 686, 688-89 (5th Cir. 2019); United States 

v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). 

A district court commits clear error when it determines that a 

defendant is subject to a mandatory minimum term of supervised release 

upon revocation. Campos, 922 F.3d at 688-89; see § 3583(h). In this case, the 

district court stated, “I’m constrained by the law and have to give you five 

years, 60 months, additional supervised release time.” In imposing the 

sentence, the district court again noted that the five-year term was “required 

by statute.” When defense counsel objected and pointed out that § 3583(h) 

“gives the Court discretion to impose any term that it sees fit,” the district 

court responded, “Then I’ll correct myself. I felt that it was reasonable and 

necessary to give him five years.” After defense counsel reiterated the 

objection to the five-year term of supervised release, the district court 

provided reasons for imposing the sentence that were based on the nature of 

the underlying offense, Damm’s history and characteristics, and the need to 

protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court’s comments 

reflect that defense counsel’s objections made it aware that it could impose 

fewer than five years of supervised release but that it believed the 

circumstances of the case warranted the sentence. Cf. United States v. 

Garcia-Ortiz, 310 F.3d 792, 795 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, there was no error.

In any event, any error was harmless because the record demonstrates 

that there was no “reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the 

error.” Campos, 922 F.3d at 689 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted); see English, 400 F.3d at 276. The district court clearly stated that 

it would impose a five-year term of supervised release even though the 

sentence was not mandatory, emphasizing that it believed a five-year 

supervised release term was appropriate based on the nature of the 

underlying offense, Damm’s history and characteristics, and the need to 

Case: 22-10824 Document: 00516734013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-10824

3

protect the public from further criminal behavior by Damm. See § 3553(a); 

English, 400 F.3d at 276.

Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10824 Document: 00516734013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/02/2023