Court Opinion

ID: 9554836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 00:00:25.989595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:50.993032
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60041        Document: 00516852142             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                     August 9, 2023
                                      No. 23-60041
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gregory L. Randle,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-82-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Gregory L. Randle was convicted in 2021 for using an interstate
   facility to promote prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). He
   was released on supervision in March 2021. At revocation proceedings in
   January 2023, Randle admitted he violated three conditions of release,
   including committing other crimes. He challenges his within-Guidelines-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60041      Document: 00516852142            Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/09/2023

                                     No. 23-60041

   policy-statement-range revocation sentence of 12-months’ imprisonment
   and 12-months’ supervised release as substantively unreasonable. (Randle
   was convicted in the Southern District of California; jurisdiction for his
   supervision was transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi.)
          The “plainly unreasonable” standard governs our court’s review of a
   revocation sentence. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
   2011). To prevail on a substantive-reasonableness challenge, defendant must
   show the sentence was not only an abuse of discretion but also “the error was
   obvious under existing law”.       Id.       “[T]hat the appellate court might
   reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
   insufficient to justify reversal of the district court”. United States v. Warren,
   720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
          When imposing a revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the
   district court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
   (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).         See
   § 3583(e)(3). The court “may consider the § 3553(a) factors . . . , but is not
   required to do so”, when imposing a sentence in connection with a
   mandatory revocation under § 3583(g). United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607,
   609 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Randle asserts that § 3553(a) factors—including, the nonviolent
   nature of the violations, his strong family ties, his pursuit of education, and
   the length of the sentence for his new substantive offenses—mitigate against
   a consecutive 12-month prison sentence.            He also contends the court
   lengthened his prison term to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia
   v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 321, 334–35 (2011) (“[A] court may not impose
   or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment
   program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation”.).

                                            2
Case: 23-60041      Document: 00516852142          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/09/2023

                                    No. 23-60041

          Regarding his claimed Tapia violation, although the district court
   noted Randle had a history of using illegal drugs and ordered him to
   participate in drug treatment as a condition of his supervised release, these
   references to Randle’s drug use related both to his history and characteristics
   and his potential threat to the public. These are permissible factors for the
   district court to consider. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana, 957 F.3d
   576, 579–80 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining our court has found Tapia error
   where court makes statements directly connecting need for prison sentence
   with need for rehabilitation or treatment). Randle fails to show that the need
   for rehabilitation was a “dominant factor” in his prison sentence. United
   States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
          Further, even accepting Randle’s assertion that the court was
   required to consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors for purposes of mitigation,
   he does not show that the court: failed to account for a factor that should
   have received significant weight; gave weight to an improper factor; or clearly
   erred in balancing the sentencing factors. E.g., United States v. Cano, 981
   F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Randle additionally maintains his sentence was unreasonable because
   the district court imposed the revocation sentence to run consecutively to the
   sentence imposed for his new convictions. The imposition of consecutive
   sentences is within the discretion of the court and is recommended by the
   Guidelines policy statements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f),
   p.s. & cmt. n.4 (providing that any prison term imposed upon revocation shall
   be ordered to be served consecutively to any prison term defendant is
   serving).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3