Court Opinion

ID: 9363282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 19:00:29.479226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.508287
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20090   Document: 00516609942   Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/13/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                           ____________
                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                            Fifth Circuit
                            No. 22-20090                  FILED
                          Summary Calendar         January 13, 2023
                          ____________
                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Michael Gonzales, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                            No. 22-20092
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Michael Gonzalez, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 22-20090         Document: 00516609942             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/13/2023

                                         No. 22-20090
                                       c/w No. 22-20092

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 4:20-CR-420-1, 4:17-CR-499-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Michael Gonzales, Jr., appeals following the district court’s
   revocation of his terms of supervised release imposed on prior drug and
   escape convictions, arguing that the district court imposed procedurally and
   substantively unreasonable sentences. Specifically, Gonzales argues that the
   district court found that he committed two of the multiple violations that led
   to the revocation of his supervised release based on insufficient evidence and,
   therefore, imposed procedurally and substantively unreasonable sentences
   by relying on those violations in making its sentencing decision. These
   specific sentencing claims were not preserved in the district court and we
   therefore review for plain error. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th
   477, 480-82 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677, 679 (5th
   Cir. 2017); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          Even assuming arguendo that there was insufficient evidence for the
   district court to find by a preponderance that Gonzales violated the two
   contested conditions of supervised release, in light of the testimony at the
   revocation hearing regarding his underlying conduct and the reasons for the
   sentences articulated by the district court, we are unpersuaded that Gonzales
   has demonstrated any effect on his substantial rights. See United States v.
   Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685-88 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
   The judgments of the district court are therefore AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 22-20090     Document: 00516609942         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/13/2023

                                   No. 22-20090
                                 c/w No. 22-20092

          Lastly, Gonzales argues that there is a clerical error in the written
   judgment for the revocation of supervised release in his escape case. The
   written judgment does not accurately describe the violations which were the
   basis for the revocation of his supervised release in that case. Accordingly,
   we REMAND for correction of the written judgment in accordance with
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

                                         3