REVISED

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30006

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Korryon Dashawn Carter, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:10-CR-225-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Korryon Carter contends that his 36-month revocation sentence, 

which is below the range recommended by the policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory maximum, is procedurally and substan-

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30006 Document: 00515565518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 20-30006

2

tively unreasonable. Although Carter preserved the consecutive aspect of his 

challenge, he did not object to procedural reasonableness. See MolinaMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1342−43 (2016). We need not 

determine whether the procedural-reasonableness challenge is preserved,

because it would fail regardless. See United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 

955 F.3d 519, 520 n.1 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we engage in a 

bifurcated review of a sentence. United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 

750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we consider whether the district court committed a “significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no 

error or any error is harmless, we may proceed to the second step and review 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Under the “plainly unreasonable” standard applicable to revocation sentences, see United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011), this court 

first determines whether the sentence is unreasonable, then “whether the 

error was obvious under existing law,” id. “[A] rebuttable presumption of 

reasonableness . . . applies to a consecutive sentence imposed within the parameters of the advisory federal guidelines.” United States v. Candia, 

454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The district court heard Carter’s expression of remorse and about his 

success during supervision but found it to be outweighed by his repeated 

failure to adhere to the conditions of supervision. Carter has not shown that 

the consecutive nature of his sentence rendered it unreasonable. See United 

States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), 

p.s., & comment. (n.4). We have affirmed revocation sentences that were 

ordered to run consecutively to sentences for new offenses prompting the 

revocation. See, e.g., United States v. Sims, 774 F. App’x 231, 231 (5th Cir. 

2019); United States v. Ramirez, 264 F. App’x 454, 458 (5th Cir. 2008); 

Case: 20-30006 Document: 00515565518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2020
No. 20-30006

3

United States v. Deal, 237 F. App’x. 909, 910−11 (5th Cir. 2007). Carter has 

not shown that his sentence was based on an irrelevant or improper factor, a 

clear error of judgment in balancing the relevant factors, or the district 

court’s failure to account for a factor that should have received significant 

weight. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Carter 

essentially asks us to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we will not do. See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30006 Document: 00515565518 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2020