IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60278

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MELVIN B. SYKES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:06-CR-36-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin B. Sykes appeals the statutory maximum 24-month sentence 

imposed upon revocation of his supervised release, arguing that it is both 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because he preserved his 

appellate argument by objection below, we review the sentence imposed under 

the deferential plainly unreasonable standard, employing a two-step process. 

See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). First, we ensure 

* 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

December 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 14-60278

that the district court did not commit significant procedural error; if there is 

no significant procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, “examining the totality of 

the circumstances.” United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326, 332 (5th Cir. 

2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

According to Sykes, the district court committed procedural error by 

failing to explain its reasons for the chosen sentence, specifically failing to offer 

reasons for rejecting his arguments in mitigation of sentence. He is mistaken. 

The district court listened to Sykes’s arguments in mitigation but also 

considered other relevant sentencing factors, including his personal history 

and characteristics and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D). Although the court did not explicitly 

state that it had done so, the record makes clear that it considered and rejected 

Sykes’s mitigation arguments in light of the other factors, and more extensive 

reasons were not required. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). 

Sykes alternatively contends that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable. He complains that the court did not give adequate weight to his 

mitigation arguments and erroneously considered an improper sentencing 

factor, the fifth charged violation. Sykes’s argument that the district court 

improperly considered the fifth charged violation is not well-taken as the 

record shows that the court declined to consider the charge after determining 

that there was insufficient proof to support it. 

The district court acted within its statutory authority by imposing a 24-

month sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. McKinney, 520 

F.3d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 2008). Sykes’s appellate argument is essentially an 

attempt to have this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we will not do. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Miller, 634 F.3d at 483. In 

2

 Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 14-60278

light of the facts of the case, Sykes has not shown that it was a clear error of 

judgment for the district court to give greater weight to his personal history 

and characteristics and the need to protect the public than to his arguments in 

mitigation. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Accordingly, he has failed to show 

an abuse of discretion on the district court’s part, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 14-60278 Document: 00512853451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2014