IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10341

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MATTHEW JAMES LEBOEUF,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-184-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Matthew James LeBoeuf was convicted in 2006 of wire fraud in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment and three 

years of supervised release. The district court revoked his supervised release 

in August 2010 after LeBoeuf violated the conditions of his release by

committing theft, issuing a bad check, failing to make restitution payments as 

ordered, failing to provide the probation officer with requested financial 

* 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 27, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10341 Document: 00512482575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2013
No. 13-10341

information, and leaving the judicial district without permission. He was 

sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment and 12 months of supervised release. 

In 2013, the district court revoked LeBoeuf’s second term of supervised 

release after he violated the conditions of his supervised release by forging a 

financial instrument, failing to make monthly restitution payments, opening 

fraudulent credit accounts in his parents’ names, forging his name on his 

father’s car title; failing to abstain from the use of alcohol; missing a counseling 

session; posting for sale an electronic item on Craigslist; and traveling without 

authorization. He was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. LeBoeuf now 

appeals his 24-month sentence, arguing that the district court impermissibly

focused on his underlying criminal conduct instead of his breach of trust.

Ordinarily, we review sentences imposed on revocation of supervised 

release under a plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Warren, 720 

F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). Because LeBoeuf failed to alert the district court 

to the specific alleged error he raises on appeal, we review for plain error only. 

See id. at 332. To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant 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. Id.

If a district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

defendant has violated a condition of supervised release, the court “may impose 

any sentence that falls within the appropriate statutory maximum term of 

imprisonment allowed for the revocation sentence.” United States v. 

McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 427 (5th Cir. 2008); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In 

doing so, the district court is directed to consider the relevant factors 

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the non-binding policy 

2

 Case: 13-10341 Document: 00512482575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2013
No. 13-10341

statements found in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines. United 

States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Whitelaw, 

580 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2009).

LeBoeuf’s 24-month sentence fell within the statutory maximum 

sentence he could receive upon revocation of his supervised release. See 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1343, 3559(a)(2), 3583(e)(3). Moreover, given that the district court’s 

primary considerations in imposing the 24-month sentence were LeBoeuf’s 

history of defrauding people and protection of the public, it properly considered 

the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See § 3553(a)(1). Thus, his 24-month sentence 

was not the result of error, much less plain error. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at

265.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-10341 Document: 00512482575 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/27/2013