Court Opinion

ID: 9893432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 00:00:28.140636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:38.908670
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60142         Document: 00516945896             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/26/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-60142                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           October 26, 2023
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Levi Orey,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:13-CR-103-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          The district court revoked Levi Orey’s supervised release and
   sentenced him to 12 months and one day of imprisonment. He contends the
   court erred in concluding he violated the terms of his supervised release when
   he committed the crimes of disorderly conduct and possession of a controlled
   substance.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60142      Document: 00516945896          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/26/2023

                                    No. 23-60142

          Our court reviews the decision to revoke supervised release for abuse
   of discretion. E.g., United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir.
   2005). A district court does not do so if it finds by a preponderance of the
   evidence the defendant violated a condition of his release. E.g., id.; see also
   18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (outlining process for revoking supervised release).
   Our court “must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be
   drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government”.
   United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation
   omitted).
          Orey contends his refusal to exit a vehicle is not disorderly conduct
   under Mississippi law because he: did not intend to breach the peace and
   ultimately exited the vehicle voluntarily without incident. Under Mississippi
   law, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he fails or refuses to promptly
   comply with a lawful order “with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or
   under such circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, or which may
   cause or occasion a breach of the peace”. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-35-7(1).
   Despite Orey’s assertions, a specific intent to breach the peace is not
   required. E.g., S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 747, 750
   (Miss. 2015) (concluding defendant was lawfully arrested for disorderly
   conduct when he was arrested “under circumstances that could lead to a
   breach of the peace”).
          Orey also contends—for the first time in his reply brief—that his
   conduct did not violate the disorderly-conduct statute because: the officer’s
   order was not given to avoid a breach of the peace; and the officer lacked the
   authority to arrest him. Orey, however, waived those contentions by failing
   to raise them in his opening brief. E.g., United States v. Fernandez, 48 F.4th
   405, 412 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                          2
Case: 23-60142      Document: 00516945896          Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/26/2023

                                    No. 23-60142

          The record reflects Orey failed to comply with multiple commands
   from the officer to exit the vehicle. Drawing all reasonable inferences from
   the evidence in the requisite light most favorable to the Government, the
   district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Orey violated the
   terms of his supervised release by committing disorderly conduct.
          Regarding his other challenge to the revocation of his supervised
   release, Orey asserts the evidence of illegal narcotics found in the vehicle
   during the traffic stop should have been suppressed because: the stop was
   prolonged without reasonable suspicion; and the warrants for his arrest were
   invalid. Because Orey did not raise this exclusionary-rule issue in district
   court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Williams, 847 F.3d
   251, 254 (5th Cir. 2017) (reviewing unpreserved issues for plain error). The
   requisite clear or obvious error necessary to constitute plain error is lacking:
   the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation proceedings absent a
   showing of police harassment, not applicable here. E.g., United States v.
   Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1992).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3