Court Opinion

ID: 9404430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 00:00:44.087467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.828553
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10583        Document: 00516796501             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/22/2023

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

                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                        June 22, 2023
                                       No. 22-10583                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Ronald Rene Deleon, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:08-CR-23-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         The district court revoked Ronald Rene Deleon, Jr.’s supervised
   release and sentenced him to a 24-month term of imprisonment, followed by
   six years of supervised release. Deleon appeals the supervised release
   component of his revocation sentence. We affirm.
         This case arises from a 2008 conviction. Deleon pled guilty to one
   methamphetamine-drug-conspiracy count, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10583      Document: 00516796501          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-10583

   and 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 210 months’
   imprisonment, followed by six years of supervised release.
          In 2014, Deleon filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion requesting
   that the district court amend his sentence in light of changes to the United
   States Sentencing Guidelines. In 2016, the district court exercised discretion
   on Deleon’s behalf: it granted his motion and reduced his term of
   imprisonment to 175 months.
          Deleon finished his term of imprisonment and began supervised
   release in May 2021. But he violated his supervised release conditions within
   30 days of release, specifically by using cocaine in June 2021. He tested
   positive for cocaine again in July 2021.
          In September 2021, the district court held a revocation hearing. At the
   start, the district court told Deleon that “I could have revoked you
   immediately.” Then the court announced that it had decided to give Deleon
   a second chance. At the close of the hearing the district judge told Deleon “I
   hope I don’t see you again.” Deleon replied: “You won’t.”
          But Deleon continued to violate his release conditions, and in
   February 2022, the Government moved to revoke his supervised release. A
   magistrate judge ordered that Deleon be held in custody pending another
   appearance before the district court. In June 2022, the district court saw
   Deleon again, and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment plus a fresh
   six-year supervised release term.
          Today, Deleon appeals the district court’s revocation sentence.
   Specifically, he argues that the district court reversibly erred because it
   applied a mandatory minimum to his new supervised release term, when no
   such minimum applied. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(h) (providing that a district
   court may, but need not necessarily, impose supervised release following any
   imprisonment for revocation of a prior supervised release term).

                                              2
Case: 22-10583      Document: 00516796501          Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-10583

          Because Deleon did not object below, he bears the “difficult” burden
   of showing that he is entitled to relief on plain error review. United States v.
   Huor, 852 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). That, in turn,
   means “showing (1) that the district court committed an error (2) that is plain
   and (3) affects his substantial rights and (4) that failure to correct the error
   would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (quotation omitted).
          We have said that applying a mandatory minimum to a supervised
   release term following revocation can constitute plain error. See United States
   v. Campos, 922 F.3d 686, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2019). In Campos, the district court
   applied a nonexistent minimum, stating that the supervised release range was
   “not less than eight years to life” before imposing eight years of supervision.
   Id. at 687.
          Here, by contrast, the district court did not apply a mandatory
   minimum. Instead, relying on a probation officer’s report, it said the
   “maximum” supervised release term was “six years to life, minus any
   revocation sentence that I impose.” That is an important distinction from
   Campos and enough to render any error not “plain.” See United States v.
   Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Nor has Deleon shown prejudice to his substantial rights. We do not
   infer that the district court’s comment affected the district court’s actual
   sentence because the low-end of the court’s stated maximum—six years
   minus the two years of prison time—would have generated a four-year
   “maximum” term of supervised release. Yet the district court imposed six
   years of supervised release, which suggests the court’s oral reference to a
   “maximum” supervised-release term was a mere slip of the tongue and did
   not affect its revocation sentence.

                                              3
Case: 22-10583       Document: 00516796501         Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/22/2023

                                    No. 22-10583

          In any event, we correct plain error only where it “seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
   States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (quotation omitted). Said
   differently, relief “is discretionary, and only particularly egregious errors”
   merit reversal. Cabello, 33 F.4th at 285 (quotation omitted). And here, no
   discretion is warranted. That’s primarily because Deleon has already
   received and abused the benefit of several favorable exercises of federal court
   discretion. First, the district court granted his § 3582(c) motion and reduced
   the term applicable to his 2008 conviction; absent that mercy Deleon would
   have still been incarcerated when the violations giving rise to this proceeding
   took place. And second, the district court generously declined to imprison
   Deleon in September 2021, saying that it preferred to “g[ive] this guy another
   chance.” The significant patience the district court has shown toward
   Deleon precludes us from deciding that our justice system has been unfair to
   him. Deleon’s case thus would fail the fourth prong of plain error review,
   even if it made it that far.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             4