IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10026

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICKIE JAMES KING,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-64-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2003, Rickie James King pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. After serving a 210-

month term of imprisonment, King began serving his five-year supervised 

release term on March 13, 2018. The Government filed a motion to revoke 

King’s supervised release because he used and possessed methamphetamine 

 

* 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

September 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10026 Document: 00515115287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2019
No. 19-10026

2

in June and August 2018. King pleaded true to the allegations and requested

that the court allow him to continue to serve his supervised release so that he 

could participate in a drug treatment program. The district court revoked 

King’s supervised release and sentenced him above the advisory policy 

statement sentence range to 18 months of imprisonment and 42 months of 

supervised release, stating that it believed this sentence “addresses the issues 

of adequate deterrence and protection of the public.”

On appeal, King argues that the district court’s one-sentence explanation 

was inadequate to show that it had considered the parties’ arguments and had 

a reasoned basis for its decision. He further contends that the district court’s 

error was reversible plain error. While King argues that he should not be 

required to object to preserve error when challenging procedural 

reasonableness, he correctly acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed. 

See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, 

this issue is reviewed for plain error. See id. To establish plain error, King

must show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error that 

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

(2009). Even if he succeeds, we will correct the error only if it seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The district court considered the policy statements, King’s arguments, 

and the letters of King and his friends and family, and it determined that a 

sentence of 18 months of imprisonment and 42 months of supervised release 

was appropriate. Although the district court did not specifically address King’s 

arguments, the court’s reasons for imposing the sentence were adequate in 

view of the record as a whole and did not constitute clear or obvious error. See

United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 437-39 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. 

Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525-26 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, King has not shown 

 Case: 19-10026 Document: 00515115287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2019
No. 19-10026

3

that any error affected his substantial rights as he has not shown that a more 

detailed explanation would have resulted in a lower sentence or continued 

supervised release. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264-65; United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, King 

has not shown that the district court’s explanation for the sentence was so 

insufficient that it rose to the level of reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 

U.S. at 135.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10026 Document: 00515115287 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/12/2019