Court Opinion

ID: 9929240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 01:00:44.89836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:18.990652
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60396        Document: 00517053303             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2024

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

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                           February 1, 2024
                                      No. 23-60396
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   James E. Homan,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:15-CR-62-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Defendant-Appellant James E. Homan appeals his sentence of twelve
   months of imprisonment that the district court imposed when it revoked his
   term of supervised release. He contends that his sentence is procedurally
   unreasonable because (1) the district court failed to adequately explain the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60396      Document: 00517053303           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                                     No. 23-60396

   sentence, and (2) the denial of his request for a sentence of one year and one
   day was based on a factual finding without evidentiary support.
          Homan did not object to the adequacy of reasons for the sentence in
   the district court, so our review is limited to plain error. See United States v.
   Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018). A sentence is plainly erroneous
   only if it is “clear or obvious” that its imposition was an abuse of discretion.
   Id. A sentencing judge’s explanation of a sentence may be brief as long as the
   record indicates that the judge listened to the parties’ arguments, considered
   the supporting evidence, and was aware of the defendant’s circumstances.
   Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).
          Before imposing Homan’s twelve-month sentence, the district court
   considered the advisory range of six to twelve months of imprisonment, the
   relevant sentencing factors, and the policy statement at U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
   The court expressly acknowledged that it took into account the nature and
   circumstances of Homan’s offense, his history and characteristics, and the
   need to protect the public. As this is sufficient explanation, the sentencing
   court did not commit plain error. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
          Homan also argues that the district court’s decision denying his
   request for a sentence of one year and one day was procedurally unreasonable
   because the court relied on facts and evidence outside the record. This
   argument was preserved, so we apply the plainly-unreasonable standard,
   under which Homan must demonstrate a “significant procedural error” like
   “selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.” See Fuentes, 906
   F.3d at 325; United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 330-31 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (holding that it is the defendant’s burden to show that the sentencing court
   relied on “materially untrue information”).
          Homan contends that the district court erroneously relied on his
   prison disciplinary history in rejecting his requested sentence. The probation

                                          2
Case: 23-60396     Document: 00517053303           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/01/2024

                                    No. 23-60396

   officer stated on the record at the revocation hearing that Homan had
   disciplinary violations when he had been incarcerated previously. However,
   Homan does not contend that he in fact received no violations, making the
   probation officer’s representation “materially untrue.” See Warren, 720 F.3d
   at 331. Homan has thus failed to demonstrate that the district court acted
   unreasonably in denying his request by considering “clearly erroneous
   facts.” See Fuentes, 906 F.3d at 325.
          Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                           3