IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CURTIS LLOYD RAMSDALE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-745-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Lloyd Ramsdale has appealed the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release and imposing a statutory maximum two-year 

term of imprisonment. He contends that the district court improperly 

considered factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing the 

sentence.

 

* 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

August 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20436 Document: 00513632170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2016
No. 15-20436

2

Ordinarily, revocation sentences are reviewed under a “plainly 

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 

(5th Cir. 2011). However, because no objection was made at the revocation 

hearing, this court’s review of Ramsdale’s revocation sentence is limited to 

plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 

(5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, Ramsdale must show a forfeited error 

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

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (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.

Because 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) omits from its directive the sentencing 

factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A), which include 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,” § 3553(a)(2)(A), “it is improper for a 

district court to rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) for the modification or revocation of a 

supervised release term.” Miller, 634 F.3d at 844.

Ramsdale argues that the district court plainly erred in pronouncing his 

sentence because it mentioned that the sentence “would further reflect the 

seriousness of the noted violations, promote respect for the law and this Court, 

and provide just punishment for the defendant’s continued violation of the 

law.” According to Ramsdale, in making this statement, the district court 

improperly considered factors listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A) in determining his 

sentence. However, the district court’s mere mention of the factors without 

more does not result in plain error. See United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 

616 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the factors listed in the subject statement were 

only some of the several factors that the district considered in pronouncing 

Ramsdale’s sentence, and the record does not establish that the subject factors 

 Case: 15-20436 Document: 00513632170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2016
No. 15-20436

3

were the dominant factors in the court’s sentencing decision. See United States 

v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied, 797 F.3d 307 

(5th Cir. 2015). Finally, it appears that the subject comments were made in 

the context of Ramsdale’s failure to comply with his obligations under the 

terms and conditions of his supervised release term and not in connection with 

the underlying offenses. In this regard, the comments do not offend § 3583(e) 

nor this court’s holding in Miller. See Rivera, 797 F.3d at 308 (recognizing 

distinction between punishment for the offense of conviction and sanctioning 

the violations resulting in revocation of supervised release). Based on the 

foregoing, any error by the district court in making the subject statement was 

not “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.” Puckett, 

556 U.S. at 135.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20436 Document: 00513632170 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2016