IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50445

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MAURICIO LEMUS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-886-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mauricio Lemus appeals the revocation of his supervised release term 

for his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The district 

court concluded that Lemus violated the terms of his supervised release by 

using controlled substances and committing an assault by strangulation and 

unlawful restraint against his wife.

* 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

May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50445 Document: 00515411778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 19-50445

2

First, Lemus argues that the district court imposed an erroneous 

sentence because the Government offered nothing more than hearsay to prove 

that he committed a Grade A violation. However, we will not consider that 

argument as Lemus has not sufficiently briefed the issue. See United States v. 

Scroggins, 599 F.3d 443, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

Second, he contends that the Government did not establish that the 

alleged assault and unlawful restraint qualified as Grade A violations under 

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1. Because Lemus did not raise this objection in the district 

court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 

321, 326-27 (5th Cir. 2013).

We have held that Texas assault by strangulation is a crime of violence 

under the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Howell, 838 F.3d 489, 

501-03 (5th Cir. 2016). Therefore, because the Government established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Lemus assaulted his wife by strangulation, 

the district court did not err in categorizing the offense as a Grade A violation 

under the Guidelines, and we need not consider whether unlawful restraint is 

a crime of violence under the Guidelines. See id.; Warren, 720 F.3d at 326-27; 

United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005); § 7B1.1(b).

Finally, Lemus argues that the district court imposed a substantively 

unreasonable sentence because his personal circumstances, specifically his 

troubled marriage and substance abuse problem, did not warrant a 30-month 

sentence. He also claims that the five-year term of supervised release was 

unnecessary as a means of monitoring his interactions with his wife because 

he informed the district court at sentencing that he was seeking a divorce.

However, the district court heard Lemus’s arguments for residential 

treatment and explanations regarding his volatile marriage and substance 

abuse problem. The district court also heard the Government’s concern over 

 Case: 19-50445 Document: 00515411778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2020
No. 19-50445

3

the danger to the victim posed by her husband and expressed its own concern 

over the state of the marriage. Lemus has not shown that the district court, 

when imposing sentence, failed to consider a significant factor, considered an 

improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the relevant 

factors. See Warren, 772 F.3d at 320. He therefore has not shown that the 

district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable 

sentence. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50445 Document: 00515411778 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2020