United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-50725 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

James Demoung Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:06-CR-151-3 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Demoung Williams challenges the above-guidelines sentence 

imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he 

contends that the district court committed plain error by relying on clearly 

erroneous facts in arriving at the sentence. We agree with Williams, vacate 

his sentence, and remand for re-sentencing. 

 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 1, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-50725 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-50725 

2 

I. 

In 2006, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the 

intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 240 months of 

imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. His term of supervised 

release began on February 13, 2020. 

In 2023, his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised 

release, asserting that Williams violated the conditions requiring him to 

abstain from alcohol use, maintain regular employment, and timely notify the 

probation officer of any change in residence. The probation officer then filed 

an amended petition to revoke, adding an allegation that Williams violated 

another condition of his supervised release by committing theft. 

At the revocation hearing, Williams conceded each violation except 

the allegation of theft, which the Government then abandoned. The district 

court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment. In 

giving its reasons for imposing this sentence, the district court stated: 

He has an extensive history of assault, drug distribution, 

aggravated robbery, and theft. In the Court’s opinion, he 

appears to—having seen him once before, he appears to lack 

motivation, desire to change, while failing to support his 

children, as required by [the sentencing judge]. And he’s 

admitted to drinking alcohol on several occasions. Not just 

one. And so I would say he’s not responded well, even though 

this case began in 2006. It could have been even before that. 

It’s got a 2006 case number. 

The court further explained that it considered the policy statements in 

Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines as well as the pertinent § 3553(a) 

factors in determining that Williams’s repeated noncompliance with the 

supervised release conditions, breach of the court’s trust, likelihood of 

Case: 23-50725 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-50725 

3 

recidivism, and history and characteristics all warranted an above-guidelines 

sentence. 

II. 

On appeal, Williams asserts that the revocation sentence is 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that 

the district court’s statements falsely implied that he had been brought before 

the court for previous violations and that he had failed to pay child support. 

Williams also asserts that the sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment is 

substantively unreasonable. 

As for his first contention, Williams argues that the district court 

committed procedural and substantive error by relying on erroneous facts in 

imposing the sentence. Because he did not raise these specific arguments in 

the district court, we review for plain error only. United States v. Whitelaw, 

580 F.3d 256, 259–60 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 

425 (5th Cir. 2020). To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) the 

district court committed an error that (2) is clear or obvious and (3) that 

affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009); see also United States v. Rodriguez-Pena, 957 F.3d 514, 516 (5th Cir. 

2020). Even if the defendant makes this showing, this court may exercise its 

discretion to correct the error only if the error “seriously affect[ed] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Puckett, 556 

U.S. at 135. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Sentencing courts must “carefully articulate the reasons” for 

revocation sentences outside of the guideline range. United States v. Mares, 

402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). In the context of a challenge to an aboveguidelines revocation sentence, this court will affirm on plain error review if 

“there is no indication that the district court would impose a lighter sentence 

on remand” and the record is “sufficient for [this court] to assess the reasons 

Case: 23-50725 Document: 73-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-50725 

4 

and reasonableness” of the sentence. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264–65. But if a 

defendant can show that a clear error affected his substantial rights, we 

generally “must exercise our discretion to remand.” Rodriguez-Pena, 957 

F.3d at 515 (alterations accepted) (internal quotations omitted). 

In issuing Williams’s revocation sentence, the district court stated 

that it “ha[d] seen [Williams] once before, he appears to lack motivation 

[and] desire to change,” and he had “fail[ed] to support his children.” But 

as Williams points out, and the Government acknowledges, his sentence had 

not been previously revoked, and no evidence in the record suggests that 

Williams failed to pay child support. Williams had also not previously 

appeared before this sentencing judge. 

The Government allows that the district court’s comments were 

“inartful,” though it counters that there is “reasonable debate” as to the 

import of the court’s statements. Based on the record before us, however, 

the court’s comments were not merely inartful; they plainly evince that the 

court relied on clearly erroneous facts in sentencing Williams. See United 

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332–33 (5th Cir. 2013). And because the court 

sentenced Williams to an above-guidelines sentence, that error affected his 

substantial rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Indeed, the error was such that it 

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. With the accurate facts before it, the district court may 

well “impose a lighter sentence on remand,” Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264, or, 

at the least, clarify its sentence based on facts and factors applicable to 

Williams, not mistaken ones. 

“On the facts of this case and under current Supreme Court 

precedent, we hold that [Williams] has met” his burden to show reversible 

Case: 23-50725 Document: 73-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
No. 23-50725 

5 

plain error.1 Rodriguez-Pena, 957 F.3d at 516. Accordingly, we vacate the 

sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing. Of 

course, “[n]othing in this opinion precludes the district court from exercising 

its discretion to depart from the Guidelines and choose any sentence 

permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3553.” Id. 

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

_____________________ 

1

 Because we find that Williams has shown plain procedural error due to the district 

court’s reliance on clearly erroneous facts at sentencing, we need not address his remaining 

arguments regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 

Case: 23-50725 Document: 73-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/01/2024