Opinion ID: 63406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ybarra’s Sentence

Text: Ybarra contends that the forty-two month sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable and violates his due process rights because it is based on unreliable information. He further asserts that the court erred in imposing this sentence because it is twice as long as the high end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range of twenty-one months. When sentencing a defendant pursuant to the revocation of supervised release, the district court may impose any sentence that falls within the appropriate statutory maximum term of imprisonment allowed for the revocation sentence.8 Before imposing a supervised release revocation sentence, the court must consider the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the nonbinding policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines.9 “Prior to Booker, this court would uphold a sentence imposed ‘after revocation of supervised release unless it [was] in violation of law or [was] not have observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 7 United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 1994). 8 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 9 United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir. 1994). 5 No. 07-40294 plainly unreasonable.’”10 “In Booker, however, the Supreme Court . . . directed appellate courts to review for unreasonableness.”11 “This court has declined to resolve which standard of review applies to revocation sentences after Booker; instead, this court has reviewed revocation cases under (a) both the ‘plainly unreasonable’ and the Booker unreasonableness standards of review or (b) the more exacting Booker unreasonableness standard.”12 We need not decide the precise post-Booker standard of review for a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release because, in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the district court was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. First, because we defer to the district court’s determination that Saldana’s testimony was credible, Ybarra’s forty-two month sentence was not based on inherently unreliable information regarding violations (3) and (6). Second, contrary to Ybarra’s contention, the sentence imposed was not an upward variance from the recommended Guidelines range. The district court, in fact, adhered to the Guidelines recommendation and sentenced Ybarra to serve twenty-one months as to each of the two original counts for which he was originally convicted, albeit they are to be served consecutively, for a total of forty-two months.13 Neither did the court err in 10 United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2000)). 11 McKinney, 520 F.3d at 428. 12 Id. (citing United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005)). 13 Ybarra originally committed two class C felonies. The maximum sentence that could be imposed on revocation was two years on each count. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3). Ybarra also had a criminal history category of II and Grade A probation violations. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). The Sentencing Commission recommends that defendants with Grade A violations and criminal history categories of II be sentenced upon revocation of supervised release to serve between fifteen and twenty-one months of imprisonment. Id. at § 7B1.4(a). The district court sentenced Ybarra to twenty-one months on each of his two original convictions. 6 No. 07-40294 imposing two sentences to run consecutively.14 Ybarra’s claim that his sentence is unreasonable is unavailing.