Court Opinion

ID: 9911496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 01:00:40.598485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:23.509320
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20211        Document: 00517006945             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023

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

                                      No. 23-20211
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               December 19, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Nolan Sharp,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-189-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and his
   successful appeal of his original sentence, Nolan Sharp was resentenced to 33
   months of imprisonment. The district court ordered his federal sentence to
   run concurrently with a previously imposed state sentence in Cause Number

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20211      Document: 00517006945           Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/19/2023

                                     No. 23-20211

   1700807 and consecutively to the state sentence in Cause Number 1706501.
   Sharp appeals only the imposition of a consecutive sentence.
          Sharp first argues that the district court mistakenly believed it lacked
   discretion to impose a fully concurrent sentence. His request at sentencing
   for a fully concurrent sentence did not allege or attempt to correct any
   misunderstanding of the district court’s discretion, so plain error review
   applies to this issue. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
   361 (5th Cir. 2009). Sharp must show that (1) there is “an error or defect”;
   (2) that error was “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable
   dispute”; and (3) that the error “affected [his] substantial rights.” Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          Sharp primarily relies on a statement in a supplemental memorandum
   from the probation officer that the district court “shall” order the sentence
   to run consecutively to Cause Number 1706501. He also asserts that his
   argument is supported by the district court’s failure to explicitly discuss the
   18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the factors in U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3,
   comment. (n.4(A)). However, we conclude that the relevant statement in
   the memorandum clearly was part of a sentencing recommendation rather
   than any indication of a limitation on the district court’s discretion. Further,
   the supplemental memorandum cited U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) which explicitly
   states: “In any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment,
   the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently,
   partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of
   imprisonment . . . .” We also note that the discussions at sentencing clearly
   and repeatedly indicated to the district court that it had the discretion to
   impose either a consecutive or a concurrent sentence. Unlike in the cases
   cited by Sharp, we do not see any statement by the district court indicating
   that it believed it lacked the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence.

                                          2
Case: 23-20211      Document: 00517006945            Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/19/2023

                                      No. 23-20211

   Indeed, the presence of its discretion was clear. We conclude that Sharp has
   not shown any error, much less that it was clear or obvious.
          In addition, Sharp argues that the district court failed to comply with
   requirements that it consider the § 3553(a) factors or the § 5G1.3 factors
   when deciding between a concurrent or consecutive sentence. In a related
   argument, he argues that the district court failed to adequately explain its
   decision. Again, Sharp did not alert the district court to these issues, so we
   review for plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361.
          We have held that, “[a]bsent a contrary indication in the record,”
   evidence that the court was made aware of relevant facts and arguments
   “implies that the district court was aware of and considered the § 3553(a)
   factors.” United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 440 (5th Cir. 2000).
   Our review of the record shows that the parties and probation officer
   provided the district court with facts and arguments relevant to most of the
   § 3553(a) and § 5G1.3 factors. In addition, we conclude that the district
   court’s statements “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it]
   has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
   his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
   356 (2007). For the above reasons, we conclude that Sharp has not shown
   that the district court plainly erred.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            3