IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30215

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAREEL POINDEXTER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-289

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sareel Poindexter received a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment, 

above the advisory guidelines range, after pleading true to technical violations 

of his supervised release. On appeal, he seeks summary disposition on his 

assertion that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable. Poindexter 

challenges this court’s standard of review, asserting that a defendant should 

not be required to show that an error by the district court in sentencing 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

September 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30215 Document: 00513197049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-30215

2

obvious under the existing law. He concedes, however, that this assertion is 

foreclosed by circuit precedent and seeks to preserve the issue for further 

review. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013). In 

addition, Poindexter maintains that his revocation sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court afforded too much weight to his 

nonviolent technical release violations and did not give sufficient weight to his 

successful employment record while on release or to the advisory guidelines 

range.

We reject Poindexter’s request for summary disposition because his 

substantive reasonableness challenge implicates a fact-specific analysis of his 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. 

Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90-93 (5th Cir. 1994). While some of Poindexter’s 

arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, his challenge to the weight 

given to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is not so clearly foreclosed as to warrant 

summary disposition. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Because Poindexter did not challenge his sentence on this basis in the 

district court, we review his substantive unreasonableness argument for plain 

error. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). An 

individual seeking relief under this standard must show a clear or obvious 

error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). This court has the discretion to correct such an error but will 

do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

the proceedings. Id.

The record indicates that the district court properly considered the 

sentencing factors applicable in the revocation context under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of Poindexter’s violations of 

his supervised release, his personal history and characteristics, and the need 

 Case: 15-30215 Document: 00513197049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-30215

3

to deter future criminal conduct. These factors were proper considerations 

under § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) and under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Even if the 

district court’s statements at sentencing indicate that the court improperly 

considered Poindexter’s lack of respect for the law, a review of the record as a 

whole indicates that this was a secondary consideration. See United States v. 

Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014). Further, Poindexter has not 

demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have received a lesser 

sentence but for any error by the district court. See United States v. Davis, 602 

F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010).

This court has routinely upheld sentencing following revocation that, as 

here, exceed the guidelines policy statement range but are within the statutory 

maximum. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Poindexter has not shown that his 

24-month prison sentence is plainly unreasonable. See id.; Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

at 265. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Poindexter’s motion for summary disposition is DENIED. The alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

 Case: 15-30215 Document: 00513197049 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2015