Court Opinion

ID: 9366470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 19:00:42.868106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.449177
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60343         Document: 00516623655             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

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

                                       No. 22-60343                                   FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           January 26, 2023
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Latasha Wise,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:13-CR-90-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Latasha Wise appeals the sentence imposed following the district
   court’s revocation of supervised release. She argues that the court erred by
   rejecting her plea to violating the conditions of her supervised release and
   that it abused its discretion by sentencing her to 24 months of imprisonment.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60343      Document: 00516623655          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-60343

          Even if we assume arguendo that the same standards governing guilty
   pleas applied to Wise’s revocation proceedings and that the district court was
   required to articulate a good reason for rejecting her plea, the transcript of
   the first revocation hearing reflects that the court did so. The court explained
   that it rejected her plea because she equivocated about whether she knew that
   she was violating the conditions of her supervised release, and Wise does not
   address this reason in her brief. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262
   (1971); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005); United
   States v. Martinez, 486 F.2d 15, 20 (5th Cir. 1973).
          Asserting that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
   consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Chapter 7 of the Guidelines when imposing
   her sentence, Wise argues that her sentence is unreasonable given the facts
   of her case and her guidelines range. We review her procedural challenges
   for plain error because she did not present these specific objections to the
   district court. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th
   Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). However, we review the substantive
   reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion under a plainly
   unreasonable standard because she preserved this objection.                 See
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); United
   States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The district court did not procedurally err, plainly or otherwise, in
   imposing Wise’s revocation sentence because it expressly considered
   Chapter 7 of the Guidelines at the final revocation hearing, where its lengthy
   discussion of the sentence imposed reflects consideration of Wise’s
   arguments and several applicable § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
   Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).
   Wise has also failed to show that her sentence, the statutory maximum, is
   substantively unreasonable. See Foley, 946 F.3d at 685. Accordingly, the
   judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          2