IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50954

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER CHILDS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-132-1

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Christopher Childs appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after 

the second revocation of his term of supervised release. The sentence imposed 

exceeded the advisory guidelines range and was the statutory maximum. 

Childs argues that his revocation sentence is unreasonable. He contends

that the district court impermissibly considered factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) in selecting the 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

July 19, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50954 Document: 00515041947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2019
No. 18-50954

2

A district court imposing sentence in connection with a revocation under 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is directed to consider the sentencing factors delineated in 

§ 3553(a), but may not primarily rely on the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors. See United 

States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Miller, 634 

F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). If the revocation is mandatory under § 3583(g), 

which does not direct the court as to the use of the § 3553(a) factors in selecting 

a revocation sentence, § 3583(g), the district court may consider the factors set

forth in § 3553(a), but need not do so, see United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607, 

609 (5th Cir. 2015).

Here, the factual basis underlying the revocation included an admission 

by Childs that he used cocaine. Because he conceded that he used cocaine, he 

also implicitly admitted possession of the drug. See United States v. Courtney, 

979 F.2d 45, 49 (5th Cir. 1992). He thus violated the mandatory condition of 

his supervised release that prohibited the unlawful possession of a controlled 

substance and, therefore, was subject to mandatory revocation under § 3583(g). 

§ 3583(g); see Illies, 805 F.3d at 609; United States v. Headrick, 963 F.2d 777, 

779 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court could thereby consider a § 3553(a)(2)(A)

factor. See Illies, 805 F.3d at 609.

In any event, the record does not reflect that the district court principally 

considered § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing sentence. See Walker, 742 F.3d at 616. 

The district court did not explicitly refer to any § 3553(a)(2)(A) factor, and the 

record supports that the court instead primarily – and properly – intended to 

sanction Childs’s repeated noncompliance with the terms of his supervision, 

his breach of the court’s trust, his tendency towards recidivism, his failure to 

take advantage of the favorable sentence imposed at his original revocation, 

and his likelihood to reoffend. See United States v. Rivera, 797 F.3d 307, 308-

09 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court otherwise relied on proper § 3553(a) 

 Case: 18-50954 Document: 00515041947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2019
No. 18-50954

3

factors, including Childs’s history and characteristics, the need to deter 

criminal conduct, and the duty to protect the public from additional crimes. 

Even if the district court’s remarks could be viewed as implicating a 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factor, that factor, at most, was a secondary concern or an 

additional justification for the sentence instead of a predominant 

consideration. See Walker, 742 F.3d at 617.

Given the foregoing, Childs has not shown that the district court erred 

when imposing sentence. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 260. Therefore, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50954 Document: 00515041947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2019