Court Opinion

ID: 9943669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 01:00:47.344359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:42.838554
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10605           Document: 53-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10605
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                               February 23, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Alcario Ramirez,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:14-CR-208-7
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Alcario Ramirez contests his 24-months’-imprisonment sentence
imposed after his term of supervised release was revoked. He contends his
sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
      Regarding his procedural contentions, he maintains the district court
plainly erred by:      failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10605        Document: 53-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                 No. 23-10605

sentencing factors; and failing to adequately explain its imposed sentence.
He asserts his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court:
clearly erred in its balancing of the sentencing factors; and may have
considered an improper factor.
       Usually, our court reviews a challenge to a revocation sentence under
a plainly-unreasonable standard. E.g., United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322,
325 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining standard). Because Ramirez did not raise
these issues in district court, however, review is only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). (Along that
line, and as reflected above, Ramirez concedes the issues were not raised in
district court for the procedural challenge, but contends they were for the
substantive-reasonable issues. We disagree with his latter assertion.) Under
that standard, Ramirez must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious
error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his
substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he
makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain
error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
       Regarding his procedural contentions, the court’s statement may be
brief, but it is sufficient where the record shows the sentencing judge:
listened to the parties’ contentions; considered the supporting evidence; and
was aware of defendant’s circumstances. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 358–59 (2007) (“[C]ontext and the record make clear that this, or
similar, reasoning underlies the judge’s conclusion”.).             Moreover,
“[i]mplicit consideration of the § 3553 factors is sufficient”. United States v.
Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996).
       Although the district court did not explicitly state it had considered
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors or explain its choice of sentence,

                                       2
Case: 23-10605        Document: 53-1           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                   No. 23-10605

the record shows the court implicitly considered the relevant § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and provided sufficient explanation to allow for
meaningful appellate review. Before imposing the 24-month sentence, the
district court adopted the statements in the supervised-release petition and
stated it had considered all the evidence and consulted the policy statement.
See, e.g., United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 440–42 (5th Cir.
2000) (“[T]he district court was advised of [the § 3553(a)] factors by the
[presentence investigation report] and by the arguments of defense counsel.
Absent a contrary indication in the record, such evidence implies that the
district court was aware of and considered the § 3553(a) factors.” (footnote
omitted)). Further, the court imposed the sentence following Ramirez and
his attorney’s discussing the nature and circumstances of Ramirez’
supervised-release    violations    and       his   history   and   characteristics.
Accordingly, Ramirez fails to show, inter alia, the requisite clear-or-obvious
error. E.g., Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 259.
       Regarding his substantive-reasonableness contentions, Ramirez
asserts the court could not have properly balanced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors because there is nothing in the record suggesting the court
considered them. Nevertheless, as discussed supra, the record shows the
court implicitly considered those factors, namely the nature and
circumstances of Ramirez’ supervised-release violations and his history and
characteristics. Further, to the extent Ramirez contends his sentence is
unreasonable because it is three times longer than his initial revocation
sentence, our court routinely upholds revocation sentences exceeding the
recommended Guidelines sentencing range, even where the sentence is the
statutory maximum. See, e.g., United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500–01
(5th Cir. 2012) (rejecting similar assertion under less-deferential, abuse-of-
discretion review).

                                          3
Case: 23-10605       Document: 53-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                 No. 23-10605

       Finally, Ramirez asserts the court may have imposed the 24-months’
sentence for the improper purpose of promoting respect for the law and
providing just punishment. There is, however, nothing “in the record to
plausibly suggest that the district court based its sentence on the need for
retribution”. See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 2018).
       AFFIRMED.

                                      4