United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30411

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Brandon L. Hunt, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CR-39-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Brandon L. Hunt was sentenced above the Guidelines range to 24 

months of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. 

On appeal, Hunt asserts that the district court reversibly erred by considering 

an impermissible factor —promoting respect for the law — in imposing the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30411 Document: 00516708357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2023
No. 22-30411

2

revocation sentence. He further asserts that his revocation sentence was 

substantively unreasonable.

The Government filed an opposed motion to supplement the record 

on appeal with the violation worksheet and to place the supplemental record 

under seal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) allows for the 

supplementation of the record “[i]f anything material to either party is 

omitted from . . . the record by error or accident.” The violation worksheet 

was relied upon in the district court and, thus, is material to the issue on 

appeal. See Waguespack v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 795 F.2d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 

1986). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to supplement the record is 

GRANTED, and the clerk’s office is directed to place the supplemental 

record under seal. 

During a defendant’s initial sentencing, the district court must 

consider, among other factors, the need for the sentence “to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just 

punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The Section 

3552(a)(2)(A) factors, however, may not be considered when fashioning a 

revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). United States v. Sanchez, 900 

F.3d 678, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2018). A retribution-based sentencing error 

occurs when the “impermissible consideration is a dominant factor in the 

court’s revocation sentence, but not when it is merely a secondary concern 

or an additional justification for the sentence.” United States v. Rivera, 784 

F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Hunt did not object on this ground 

in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Cano, 

981 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2020). Hunt fails to demonstrate any error in this 

respect, much less one that was clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

Case: 22-30411 Document: 00516708357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2023
No. 22-30411

3

Finally, Hunt preserved his challenge to the substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence when he objected to the excessiveness of his 

sentence in the district court. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. 

Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020). A preserved challenge to a revocation sentence is 

reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. Sanchez, 900 F.3d at

682. Hunt fails to show that the sentence above the advisory range was

plainly unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-30411 Document: 00516708357 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2023