### 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 08/10/2016No. 15

- 20436

2 Ordinarily, revoca tion 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 li mited 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 d irective 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 sen tence “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 distric t 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. 2 014). Moreover , t he factors listed in the subject statement were only some of the several factors that the district considered in pronouncing Ramsdale’s sentence , and t he record does not establish that the subject factors Case: 15-20436 Document: 00513632170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2016No. 15

- 20436

3 were the dominant factor s 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 distr ict 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