United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40839 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Bradley Jeremiah Bolden, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:21-CR-614-1 

______________________________ 

Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and deGravelles, 

District Judge.

1

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Bradley Jeremiah Bolden (“Bolden”) appeals the district 

court’s revocation sentence. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM 

the district court’s sentence. 

_____________________ 

1

 United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by 

designation. 

*

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

Haynes concurs in the judgment only. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 14, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-40839 

2 

I. Background 

In 2021, Bolden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport and move 

within the United States an alien who had come to, entered, and remained in 

the United States in violation of law. Bolden was sentenced to five months of 

imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. Bolden did 

not appeal his conviction or sentence. He began serving his supervised 

release on August 6, 2021. 

 In October 2021, the probation officer filed a report indicating that 

Bolden submitted a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana. The 

probation officer recommended that Bolden continue on supervised release, 

as she warned Bolden that further noncompliance could result in revocation 

proceedings and the district court could address the violation at a later date. 

The district court concurred with the probation officer’s recommendation. 

 In July 2022, Bolden’s new probation officer submitted a petition for 

a warrant or summons, alleging that Bolden violated the terms of his 

supervised release. The probation officer recommended that his supervised 

release be revoked. The district court ordered the issuance of a warrant and 

no bond. Bolden was arrested on November 1, 2022. 

In December 2022, the probation officer submitted a superseding 

petition for warrant or summons and recommended that Bolden’s supervised 

release be revoked. The superseding petition alleged that Bolden violated the 

terms of his supervised release by (1) testing positive for marijuana; (2) failing 

“to submit to urine surveillance”; (3) failing to participate in drug and 

alcohol treatment, as directed, by failing to submit to drug tests; (4) failing to 

participate in mental health treatment, as directed; (5) failing to contact his 

assigned probation officer as instructed; (6) failing to report to the U.S. 

Probation Office as instructed by his probation officer; (7) failing to notify his 

probation officer prior to his change in employment; (8) “leaving the judicial 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-40839 

3 

district without permission”; (9) failing to notify his probation officer within 

72 hours of arrest; and (10) failing to pay the $100 special assessment. 

At the revocation hearing, Bolden pleaded true to leaving the judicial 

district without permission (allegation 8) and failing to make any payments 

towards the $100 special assessment (allegation 10). The Government 

moved to dismiss the remaining 8 allegations. The Government argued that 

an upward variance “well above the recommended [guidelines] range” was 

appropriate. It argued that Bolden engaged in “countless supervised release 

violations.” It maintained that his supervised release violations were “well 

outside the norm” because of his “ongoing conduct from the time of his 

release” and “in particular, his vulgar and just plain rude behavior toward 

the Probation Officer.” The Government pointed out that Bolden’s original 

sentence was “quite low[,]” as he received a below-guidelines sentence of 

only five months. It argued that Bolden had “yet to receive a sentence which 

has effectively taught him respect for the law.” 

In response, Bolden, through counsel, asked for a sentence of time 

served with the termination of supervised release so that he could “get back 

to his family and save his business.” He noted that he had been detained 

almost two months. In the alternative, Bolden asked that his term of 

supervised release term “continue until it was originally set to expire.” He 

emphasized his lack of criminal history and noted that he is not one “well 

versed in navigating” supervised release requirements. Bolden also 

highlighted that his supervised release violations were technical in nature. 

The district court stated that it reviewed Bolden’s file carefully, as 

well as the letters from Bolden’s family and friends. The district court 

expressed that it “[did]n’t quite get it[,]” noting that Bolden was 29 years 

old, knew what he needed to be doing, “[b]ut for whatever reason, [he] 

decided that [he] just [was]n’t going to do it.” The district court highlighted 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-40839 

4 

that Bolden was convicted of “a very serious offense” that had 

consequences, including compliance with the conditions of supervised 

release. The district court told Bolden that he needed to comply with the 

imposed conditions of supervised release, as they were part of his sentence. 

The district court stated that “a sentence at the top end of the 

Guideline [wa]s warranted in this case due to the characteristics of the 

Defendant and to promote respect for the law.” It sentenced Bolden at the 

high-end of the guidelines range, to nine months of imprisonment, to be 

followed by 27 months of supervised release. The district court noted that 

the revocation sentence “addresse[d] the sentencing objectives in 

accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Bolden objected to the district 

“[c]ourt’s consideration of the need to promote respect for the law in 

evaluating his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3583(c).” Bolden’s attorney 

explained that “[t]he need to promote respect for the law is not one of the 

factors to be considered in deciding supervised release terms[,]” stating that 

he “just note[d] that for the record.” In response, the district court stated 

“[g]reat” and moved on. Bolden timely filed a notice of appeal. 

II. Legal Standard 

We review a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release 

under a “plainly unreasonable” standard, in a two-step process. United States 

v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). First, we “ensure that the 

district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, 

including failing to explain a deviation from the Guidelines range.” United 

States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “If the district court’s sentencing decision lacks procedural error, 

this court next considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-40839 

5 

imposed.” Id. If we find the sentence unreasonable, we may reverse the 

district court only if we further determine “the error was obvious under 

existing law.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Where, as here, the appellant argues that the district court’s consideration of 

an improper factor in crafting a revocation sentence is both a procedural and 

substantive error, this court need not distinguish between the two in its 

analysis. See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 683 (5th Cir. 2018). “[A] 

sentencing error occurs when an impermissible consideration is a dominant 

factor in the court’s revocation sentence, but not when it is merely a 

secondary concern or an additional justification for the sentence.” United 

States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. 

Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir.2014)). 

III. Discussion 

Bolden argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable because the district court considered the need to promote 

respect for the law in determining its sentence. However, the supervised 

release hearing transcript makes plain that the district court was primarily 

focused on other factors, namely, Bolden’s many alleged violations of his 

supervised release including (1) testing positive for marijuana; (2) failing “to 

submit to urine surveillance”; (3) failing to participate in drug and alcohol 

treatment, as directed, by failing to submit to drug tests; (4) failing to 

participate in mental health treatment, as directed; (5) failing to contact his 

assigned probation officer as instructed; (6) failing to report to the U.S. 

Probation Office as instructed by his probation officer; (7) failing to notify his 

probation officer prior to his change in employment; (8) “leaving the judicial 

district without permission”; (9) failing to notify his probation officer within 

72 hours of arrest; and (10) failing to pay the $100 special assessment; as well 

as his rude behavior towards his probation officer. Read in context, “respect 

for the law” was “an additional justification” for Bolden’s sentence, not a 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-40839 

6 

“dominant factor.” Rivera, 784 F.3d at 1017. The court’s statement 

demonstrates that the court was primarily frustrated with Bolden’s pattern 

of noncompliance with the terms of his supervised release and chose the 

sentence to afford adequate deterrence and sanction Bolden for his breach of 

the court’s trust. These are permissible considerations in a revocation 

hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B); United 

States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining “[a] sentence 

imposed on revocation of supervised release punishes a breach of trust for 

violating the conditions of supervision”(citation omitted)); U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, 

Pt. A, intro. comment 3(b) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2014) (explaining 

when imposing revocation sentence, court primarily sanctions defendant’s 

breach of trust). 

For the reasons stated above, we hold that the dominant factor 

motivating the district court’s sentencing decision was Bolden’s multiple 

violations of his supervised release. We acknowledge that, at a single point in 

the record, the district court mentioned Bolden’s lack of respect for the law. 

But having reviewed the record in its entirety, we cannot say that this singular 

mention constituted a dominant factor in the district court’s analysis given 

the alleged violations, the testimony of his probation officer, Bolden’s 

allocution, and the district court’s statements. Accordingly, Bolden has not 

demonstrated a sentencing error, plain or otherwise. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence. 

Case: 22-40839 Document: 00516820903 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2023