IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50030

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCEIVA ALLEN STEVENS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-179-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marceiva Allen Stevens appeals the 24-month, above-guidelines 

sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. For the 

first time on appeal, he argues that his sentence was procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court failed to state sufficient reasons in 

support. He further argues, also for the first time, that his sentence was 

 

* 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

August 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50030 Document: 00514130976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2017
No. 17-50030

2

substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve 

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Stevens did not object to either the procedural or substantive 

unreasonableness of the sentence imposed in the district court, review is for 

plain error only.1 See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 

2009). To establish plain error, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion 

to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

If a district court imposes a revocation sentence that falls outside of the 

range recommended by the policy statements, it must provide “some 

explanation” for its decision. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 261-62. It should 

articulate reasons that are sufficient to “satisfy the appellate court that [it] has 

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] 

legal decision making authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 

(2007) (quoted in Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 261).

The district court referenced the witness testimony and the allegations 

in the revocation pleadings to the effect that Stevens, rather than merely 

consuming alcohol, had engaged in dangerous behavior presenting a public 

hazard, “whether intentional or not intentional,” and it found the guidelines 

range to be inadequate to address the circumstances of Stevens’s violation. 

The district court’s stated reason, though brief, was adequate in light of the

 

1 Stevens concedes that, because he failed to object at the time sentence was imposed, 

his arguments are subject to plain-error review but seeks to preserve for possible further 

review the argument that a contemporaneous objection is not required in order to preserve 

such arguments for appeal. 

 Case: 17-50030 Document: 00514130976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2017
No. 17-50030

3

revocation record as a whole and did not give rise to any clear or obvious 

procedural error. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356-57.

Stevens’s substantive unreasonableness challenge essentially amounts

to a disagreement with the district court's balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors, which we will not reweigh. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 

332 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2013). Moreover, we have “routinely affirmed revocation 

sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the sentence equals the 

statutory maximum.” Id. at 332 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 259, 265. 

Stevens has failed to show that his revocation sentence is plainly 

unreasonable or plainly erroneous. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 326, 332-33. 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-50030 Document: 00514130976 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2017