Court Opinion

ID: 9905736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 01:02:36.269578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:52.323993
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30607         Document: 00516984023             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-30607
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 29, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Josh Tapp,
                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:12-CR-201-5
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Josh Tapp was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment and five years
   of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute and to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21
   U.S.C. § 846. While he was on supervision for the underlying offense, Tapp
   was charged with new offenses in a separate case. After pleading guilty to
   conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm in

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30607      Document: 00516984023           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                     No. 22-30607

   furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in that separate case, the district court
   revoked his term of supervised release on the underlying conviction and
   imposed a 30-month sentence and ordered it to run consecutively to the 130-
   month term imposed for the conviction on the new offenses.
          Tapp argues that the district court committed a significant procedural
   error by ordering his revocation sentence to run consecutively to the sentence
   imposed on his new conviction. Because Tapp did not object on this basis in
   the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v.
   Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). He notes that the district court
   in the new criminal case ordered that the sentence imposed on that
   conviction run concurrently with any sentence to be imposed upon
   revocation.
          “[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already
   subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run
   concurrently or consecutively.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Despite Tapp’s
   assertions to the contrary, the district court in the instant case did not commit
   procedural error in ordering his revocation sentence to run consecutively to
   the sentence imposed on his new conviction, as we have recognized that “one
   district court has no authority to instruct another district court how, for a
   different offense in a different case, it must confect its sentence.” United
   States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495, 498 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Also with regard to the consecutive nature of the sentence, Tapp
   asserts that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.            A
   properly preserved challenge to a revocation sentence is reviewed under a
   “plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325
   (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). If, however, the error was
   not preserved, we will review for plain error. See id. In this case, we need not
   decide the standard of review because Tapp would not prevail under either

                                          2
Case: 22-30607        Document: 00516984023          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/29/2023

                                     No. 22-30607

   standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
   Tapp has failed to argue or demonstrate that the district court failed to
   consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave weight to
   an improper factor, or clearly erred in balancing the factors; thus, he has not
   shown that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. See United
   States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Finally, Tapp challenges the criminal history score that was calculated
   on the revocation of supervised release. He argues that the district court
   should have placed him in criminal history category III, rather than criminal
   history category IV. Because Tapp did not raise this argument before the
   district court, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 136 (2009).
          The criminal history category applicable to sentencing after
   supervised release is “‘the category applicable at the time the defendant was
   originally sentenced to a term of supervision.’” United States v. McKinney,
   520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment.
   (n.1)). Here, the district court properly used the criminal history category
   applicable when Tapp was sentenced on his original conviction for
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 100 grams or
   more of heroin. See id. Additionally, a defendant may not challenge the
   calculation of his criminal history score for the first time on appeal from a
   sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. See United States v.
   Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005). Tapp is unable to demonstrate that
   the district court committed plain error in relying on his original criminal
   history category. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Based on the foregoing, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          3