IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50645

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON BAILEY PEEK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-16-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jason Bailey Peek appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation 

of his supervised release subsequent to his conviction for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. Peek argues that the district court failed to provide 

sufficient reasons for his 24-month sentence, which was outside of the 

recommended guidelines range. He also argues that his sentence was 

unreasonable because it “punished Peek not for violations of trust, but for the 

 

* 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

January 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2017
No. 16-50645

2

uncharged criminal conduct implicit in his drug use,” which violated the 

conditions of his supervised release.

We generally review revocation sentences under the “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 

2011). In this case, however, because Peek did not object to the sentence in the 

district court, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 

484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Peek must show a 

forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a 

showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See 

id.

Contrary to Peek’s assertion, the district court gave adequate reasons for 

his sentence, including the need for his sentence to afford adequate deterrence

to Peek to prevent further violations and to address the seriousness of his 

conduct. The district court also noted that, despite having been given 

assistance in complying with his supervised release conditions through drug 

counseling, Peek nevertheless violated those conditions by continuing to use 

drugs. Moreover, because Peek has not shown that the district court’s alleged 

failure to provide more specific reasons for the sentence affected his substantial 

rights or the public reputation of the judicial proceedings, he has failed to show 

reversible plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 263-65 

(5th Cir. 2009).

Because the 24-month sentence Peek received on revocation was not 

greater than what is authorized by statute, it is “thus clearly legal.” United 

States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, we have “routinely 

upheld revocation sentences exceeding the recommended range, even where 

 Case: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2017
No. 16-50645

3

the sentence is the statutory maximum.” United States v. CastanedaEstupinan, 503 F. App’x 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Jones, 484 F.3d 

at 792 (holding statutory maximum revocation sentence not to be plain error).

The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2017