**REVISED** 

# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 sen tence, which is below the range recommended by the policy statements in the Sen

tencing Guidelines and the statutory maximum, is procedurally and sub stan

-

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 1 4 , 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-30006 Document: 00515565518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2020No. 20

- 30006

2 tively unreasonable

. Although Carter preserved the consecutive aspect of his challenge, he did not object to p rocedural reasonableness. See Molina

Martinez v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1342

− 43 (2016). We need not determine whether the procedural

- reasonableness challeng e 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. Delga do

- Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we consider whether the district court com

mitted a “significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improp

erly 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. U nder the “plainly unreasonable” standard applicable to revocation sen

tences, s ee United State s 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 , ” i d

. “[A] rebuttable presumption of

rea sonableness

. . . applies to a consecutive sentence imposed within the par

ameters 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 fou nd 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). W e 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: 09/15/2020No. 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) fac tors, whi ch 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