IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50610

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVORICK TIVELLVA SHEDWIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-277-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevorick Tivellva Shedwin appeals the 36-month, above-guidelines 

sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of the term of 

supervised release imposed after Shedwin’s conviction of possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable 

because, in formulating the sentence, the district court improperly considered 

his arrest in Odessa, Texas, and improperly considered two reports by the 

* 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

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50610 Document: 00512541103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 13-50610

United States Marshals Service (USMS) that were not admitted into evidence. 

He also argues that the sentence is excessive.

This court ordinarily reviews sentences imposed on revocation of 

supervised release under a plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. 

Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). When, as here, a defendant does 

not preserve his objection for appeal, this court reviews revocation sentences 

for plain error. Id. To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant makes such a 

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

A district “may impose any sentence that falls within the appropriate 

statutory maximum term of imprisonment allowed for the revocation 

sentence.” United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 2008); see

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In doing so, the district court is directed to consider the 

relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the non-binding 

policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines. 

United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011).

Shedwin does not contest the underlying revocation, only the sentence 

imposed. The revocation transcript shows that the district court did not rely 

upon Shedwin’s Odessa arrest in formulating the sentence. Accordingly, 

Shedwin’s argument that the district court improperly relied upon this 

information is without merit.

Shedwin’s argument that the district court improperly relied upon two 

USMS reports in formulating his sentence is likewise unavailing. Shedwin did 

not object to the district court’s consideration of the reports or to the 

Government’s summary of the contents of those reports. He cites no authority 

2

 Case: 13-50610 Document: 00512541103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 13-50610

for the proposition that the district court’s consideration of the reports was 

plainly erroneous. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that there is a 

reasonable probability that he would have received a lesser sentence but for 

the district court’s consideration of those reports. See United States v. Davis, 

602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010).

Finally, Shedwin has not demonstrated that the district court plainly 

erred by imposing the statutory maximum sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135. Revocation sentences exceeding the policy statements range but not 

exceeding the statutory maximum have been upheld as a matter of routine and

do not constitute plain error. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 265 (5th 

Cir. 2009). 

The record reflects extensive consideration by the district court of 

Shedwin’s personal history and characteristics, the circumstances of his 

violations of the conditions of supervised release, the need for deterrence, and 

the policy statements set forth in the Guidelines. See § 3583(e); Miller, 634 

F.3d at 844. “[A]fford[ing] adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” and 

“protect[ing] the public from further crimes of the defendant” are proper factors 

for the district court to consider in imposing a revocation sentence. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C); § 3583(e). As Shedwin has not demonstrated plain 

error with respect to his sentence, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-50610 Document: 00512541103 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2014