### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10607 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BENJAMIN POTTS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-15-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benjamin P otts a ppeals t h e s e ntence imposed for the revocation of his supervised release. He was sentenced to t wo consecutive terms of 24 months of imprisonment. Potts contends that t h e d i s t r ict court failed to give adequate reasons for imposing consecutive revocation sentences. The district court recogniz e d that it h ad discretion to impose conse c u t iv e revocation sentences pursuant to 18 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 26, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10607 Document: 00512187038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2013No. 12-10607

U.S.C. § 3584 a nd exp l a i n e d its concerns in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. P otts “had a hard time staying o ut of trouble,” committed crimes out of aggression and anger, posed a danger to the c omm u nity, and f ailed t o change “[his] ways in the m a ny y ears that

. . [he] ha[d] been in trouble.” Accordingly, the d i s t rict court concluded that consecutive 2 4-month sentences were “appropriate” to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors, p a r t i c ularly deterrence and just punishment. There f ore, the district court provided adequate reasons for imposing consecutive revocation sentences. See Rita v. United S tates , 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007); U

nited States v. Hernandez-Herrera , 429 F

. App’x 382, 389, 390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 469 (2011). Next, Potts asserts that the district court “b a sed it s sentencing determination on factual findings that were clearly erroneous and without a reasoned b asis” a nd “ did not hear the arguments of a ppellant regarding the consecutive sentences.” Howeve r , he d oes not explain which findings were
erroneous nor what arguments the district c o urt s h ould have but erroneously failed t o consider. These arguments are therefore waived by virtue of inadequate briefing. See United States v. Reagan , 5 9 6 F

. 3 d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010). F or the foregoing r eason s , P o t t s h as failed to show that his revocation sentence was p lainly unreasonable. See United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). Potts also contends that counsel was ineffective for failing t o object to the consecutive revocation sentences. T o establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Potts must show that counsel performed d eficiently and that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See S trickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 6 87 (1984). Potts’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is derivative of his first cla i m o f error. Therefore, the record is a dequately developed to address this claim. Cf. United S tates v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th C ir. 1987). Since the first c laim of error has no merit, even under the ordinary standard o f review,

2 Case: 12-10607 Document: 00512187038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2013No. 12-10607

“the requisite deficient p e rformance does not exist.” United States v. Mudekunye , 646 F.3d 281, 288 (5th Cir. 2011). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-10607 Document: 00512187038 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2013