### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff– Appellee

v. TOMMIE RAYMOND THOMAS, Defendant– Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-61-1

Before JONES, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommie R aymond Thomas, federal prisoner # 33447-018, appeals t he district court’s revocation of his eight terms of supervised r e l e ase and the resulting sentence o f 120 m onths in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. 1 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D January10, 2014 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s houldnot be p ublis hed and is not preced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4.

1 Th o m a s ’ s r e c ord excerp ts includ e s everal item s that were not f iled in the d is trict court. “We w ill not ord inarily enlarge the record on ap p eal to includ e m aterial not bef ore the d is trict court. ” Gregory v. Tha ler , 601 F. 3d 347, 353 ( 5th C i r . 2 0 1 0)

. Cons equently, ins of ar as Thom as ’s f

ilings m ay be read as includ ing an im plied m otion to s up p lem ent the record w ith thes e item s , it is D E N IED

. Case: 12-10840 Document: 00512495656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2014No. 12-10840

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally “cannot be r e s o l v e d

on direct appeal when the claim[s have] n ot been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to d evelop the record on the m e r i t s o f the allegations.” United States v . Cantwell , 470 F. 3 d 1 0 87, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (i nt e r n al quotation marks and citation omitted). Thomas’s ineffective as s i s t a n c e of counsel claims are n o t r i p e f o r review because the record is insufficiently developed to a llow consideration at this time, thus, we decline to c o nsider these claims. T o the extent that Thomas raises a substantive claim concerning the district court’s p ersonal j urisdiction over him, Thomas waived this argument by raising it for the first time in his reply brief. See Carmona v. S.W. Airlines Co. , 536 F.3d 344, 347 n.5 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that the appellant waived his right to appeal an i ssue because he raised it for the first t i m e i n h is reply brief); United States v. Muhammad , 165 F.3d 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 ( 5th Cir. 1999) (personal, but not subject matter, jurisdiction can be waived). A dditionally, to the extent that Thomas’s j urisdictional challenge concerns the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, his argument is unavailing in l ight of this circuit’s precedent. See United States v. Fernandez , 379 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming revocation o f the appellant’s supervised release b y t he Northern D istrict of Texas, which accepted j urisdiction over the appellant from the Western District of T exas, even though one of the b ases for the revocation was a new o ffense that t he a ppellant had committed in the Northern District of T exas b efore t h e transfer). See also18 U.S.C. § 3605. Thomas raises several sente n c i n g ch all e n g e s , n o n e of w h i ch was presented to the district c ourt. Although this typically results i n the a pplication of the plain error standard, we nonetheless review de novo those claims that raise the issue whether h is sentence was i llegal. See United S tates v. T h omas , 600 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2010). First, Thomas argues that h is consecutive sentences are impr o per because the version of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) in effect at the time of his offense limited the
2 Case: 12-10840 Document: 00512495656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2014No. 12-10840

prison term that could be imposed upon r e vocation t o 3 6 m o n t hs. Thomas is mistaken under our prior jurisprudence. Calculation of a prison term is based

on each individual offense; there is no cap on the total sentence that is derived from a ggregating prison term sentences on multiple counts. See United States

v. Go n za l e z , 250 F.3d 923, 927–28 (5th Cir. 2001). Thomas’s argument

c o n c e rning § 3583(h) is similarly unavailing because the cases he cites in support of this argument addressed multiple revocations of a single term of supervised release, r ather than the revocation of multiple t e rms of supervised release, as is the case here. See U.S. v. Zoran , 682 F.3d 1060, 1064 (8th Cir. 2012). The remainder of Thomas’s challenges to h is sentence are considered for plain error only. Relief is unavailable under this s tanda r d u n less he shows a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U. S

. 129, 135 (2009). This court has discretion to c orrect a plain

error but will do so only if i t seriously a ffects the fairness, integrit y , or public reputation of the proceedings. See id

. To the extent that Thomas contends that his sentence w a s i m p roperly grounded in the need f or just punishment and the seriousness of the offense, the record rebuts this assertion and shows that the sentence i m posed was grounded in the di strict court’s consideration of the nature and c ircumstances of Thomas’s offenses, his history, and the court’s belief that the public needed to be protected from him. These are p roper bases for a revocation sentence. See 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1) & (a)(2)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). Thomas has not shown that the district court plainly erred by choosing to impose several of his t erms of imprisonment t o run consecutively. See Gonzalez, 250 F.3d at 927–29. Insofar as T homas argues tha t h is sentence creates unwarranted disparities, he cites no instances of similarly situated defendants who received dif

f e r e n t sentences, and there is no reason to believe that the district court i gnored this f actor. See id

. at 930. Finally, T homas has not shown

3 Case: 12-10840 Document: 00512495656 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/10/2014No. 12-10840

plain error in connection with the district court’s classification of certain conduct

as a Grade B violation of his release. See 47 U .S.C. § 223; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-10840 Document: 00512495656 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/10/2014