Court Opinion

ID: 9393948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 18:01:34.137619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.357895
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10610        Document: 00516746675             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10610
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Derrick Woodard,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:06-CR-88-7
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Derrick Woodard appeals following the district court’s revocation of
   his supervised release imposed following his conviction of one count of
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute more than 50
   grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine
   base. As an initial matter, although Woodard has been released from custody,

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10610      Document: 00516746675          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/11/2023

                                    No. 22-10610

   his appeal is not moot because he is serving a term of supervised release. See
   United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 672-75 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Woodard argues that the district court plainly erred by relying on a
   mandatory minimum term of supervised release. Because Woodard did not
   object to the district court’s supervised release determination, our review is
   for plain error. See United States v. Campos, 922 F.3d 686, 688 (5th Cir.
   2019). To establish plain error, Woodard must show a forfeited error that is
   “clear or obvious” and that has “affected [his] substantial rights” by
   “affect[ing] the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). If he makes this showing, this court has the discretion to remedy
   the error but should do so “only if the error seriously affects the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
   marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
          Section 3583(h) provides that “[w]hen a term of supervised release is
   revoked and the defendant is required to serve a term of imprisonment,” the
   court may impose an additional term of supervised release that “shall not
   exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense
   that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of
   imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” 18
   U.S.C. § 3583(h).     While § 3583(h) provides for a maximum term of
   supervised release upon revocation, in Campos, we held that a district court
   commits clear or obvious error when it determines that a defendant is subject
   to a mandatory minimum term of supervised release upon revocation. 922
   F.3d at 687-88. Here, unlike the district court in Campos, the district court
   did not announce a minimum term of supervised release to apply upon
   revocation or otherwise indicate that it lacked discretion to impose a term of
   supervised release below a certain threshold. Accordingly, Woodard has not

                                              2
Case: 22-10610      Document: 00516746675          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/11/2023

                                    No. 22-10610

   shown that the district court committed any error, let alone clear or obvious
   error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Woodard further complains that the petition misstated the term of
   supervised release attributable to his original conviction because it did not
   consider the effects of the First Step Act. However, he does not explain how
   any error amounts to plain error. See United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322
   F.3d 868, 878-79 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, he fails to satisfy his burden under
   the plain error standard. See Campos, 922 F.3d at 688. The judgment of the
   district court is AFFIRMED.
          We agree that there is a clerical error in the written judgment for the
   revocation of his supervised release.     The written judgment does not
   accurately describe the violations that were the basis for the revocation of
   Woodard’s supervised release. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction
   of the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 36.

                                             3