IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10607

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN POTTS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-15-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Potts appeals the sentence imposed for the revocation of his

supervised release. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 24 months of

imprisonment. 

Potts contends that the district court failed to give adequate reasons for

imposing consecutive revocation sentences. The district court recognized that

it had discretion to impose consecutive revocation sentences pursuant to 18

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 26, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

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

U.S.C. § 3584 and explained its concerns in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. Potts “had a hard time staying out of trouble,” committed crimes out of

aggression and anger, posed a danger to the community, and failed to change

“[his] ways in the many years that . . [he] ha[d] been in trouble.” Accordingly,

the district court concluded that consecutive 24-month sentences were

“appropriate” to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors, particularly deterrence and just

punishment. Therefore, the district court provided adequate reasons for

imposing consecutive revocation sentences. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.

338, 358-59 (2007); United 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 “based its sentencing

determination on factual findings that were clearly erroneous and without a

reasoned basis” and “did not hear the arguments of appellant regarding the

consecutive sentences.” However, he does not explain which findings were

erroneous nor what arguments the district court should have but erroneously

failed to consider. These arguments are therefore waived by virtue of

inadequate briefing. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir.

2010). For the foregoing reasons, Potts has failed to show that his revocation

sentence was plainly 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 to object to the

consecutive revocation sentences. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel,

Potts must show that counsel performed deficiently and that he was prejudiced

by counsel’s performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

(1984). Potts’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is derivative of his first

claim of error. Therefore, the record is adequately developed to address this

claim. Cf. United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Since

the first claim of error has no merit, even under the ordinary standard of review,

2

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

“the requisite deficient performance 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