Court Opinion

ID: 9911734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 19:00:45.171487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:20.078110
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10511         Document: 00517008644             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10511
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 20, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Allec Shania Hamm,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-630-13
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant–Appellant Allec Shania Hamm appeals the above-
   guidelines sentence imposed on revocation of her three-year term of
   probation following her guilty plea conviction for misprision of a felony. She
   challenges her revocation sentence as both procedurally and substantively
   unreasonable.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10511      Document: 00517008644            Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                      No. 23-10511

          Hamm did not raise any specific objections regarding procedural error
   in the district court, so we review those matters for plain error. See United
   States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v.
   Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2021). Hamm must identify an
   error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett
   v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes these showings, this
   court only has the discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the
   fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See id.
   (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).
          Hamm first contends that the district court erroneously failed to
   consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in fashioning her sentence.
   However, in light of the parties’ arguments at the revocation hearing and the
   reasons that the district court articulated for imposing Hamm’s sentence, we
   conclude that it implicitly considered the relevant statutory factors. See
   Kippers, 685 F.3d at 498–99; United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526,
   531 (5th Cir. 2008) (“[A] district court need not recite each of the § 3553(a)
   factors.”). The district court discussed Hamm’s drug use, her criminal
   record, and the number of chances she had been given previously. These
   considerations encompass the circumstances and seriousness of Hamm’s
   violations, her history and characteristics, and the need to promote respect
   for the law and afford adequate deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
          Hamm also complains that the district court found that she committed
   child abuse despite a lack of evidence to support that disputed charge. But
   the court’s statement during the hearing, as well as its written judgment,
   demonstrate that the sentence did not take into consideration the child abuse
   allegation. Similarly meritless is Hamm’s assertion that the district court
   erred in imposing a sentence of incarceration to promote rehabilitation, as
   the court made clear that incapacitation and deterrence, not rehabilitation,
   were the “dominant factor[s]” in determining her sentence. See United

                                           2
Case: 23-10511        Document: 00517008644         Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                     No. 23-10511

   States v. Wooley, 740 F.3d 359, 364–65 (5th Cir. 2014). Finally, Hamm
   criticizes the district court’s characterization of the sentence as an upward
   departure without identifying a departure provision in the Sentencing
   Guidelines. However, the record belies this assertion, and Hamm has not
   even attempted to show that this alleged error satisfies the fourth prong of
   plain error review given that her written revocation judgment states that she
   was acquitted of the child abuse allegation. See United States v. Caravayo, 809
   F.3d 269, 273–74 (5th Cir. 2015) (“We have refused to correct plain errors
   when, as here, the complaining party makes no showing as to the fourth
   prong.” (internal citation and alteration omitted)). The district court made
   no procedural errors when it sentenced Hamm.
          Because Hamm objected generally to the reasonableness of her
   sentence at the revocation hearing, we review her substantive-reasonableness
   arguments for abuse of discretion. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 499–500. “A
   revocation sentence ‘is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not account
   for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant
   weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.’” United States v. Cano, 981
   F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321,
   332 (5th Cir. 2013)). Our review of the reasonableness of a sentence is highly
   deferential. Id.
          Hamm insists that her 18-month revocation sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. She claims that the sentence “does not account” for the
   relevant statutory factors. See id. As explained above, however, the record
   shows that the court implicitly considered such factors. See Kippers, 685 F.3d
   at 500. Hamm also alleges that the district court incorrectly balanced these
   factors by expressly disavowing one of them, viz., the need to provide her
   with medical care and correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D).
   However, the court did consider that factor, acknowledging that Hamm

                                          3
Case: 23-10511      Document: 00517008644           Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/20/2023

                                     No. 23-10511

   “need[ed] some help” for her addiction. It decided to give less weight to that
   factor in light of the prior leniency shown to Hamm and the seriousness of
   the allegations against her. Doing so does not constitute a “clear error of
   judgment.” See Cano, 981 F.3d at 427.
          Finally, Hamm contends that the district court impermissibly based
   its sentence on the disputed allegation of child abuse, an “irrelevant or
   improper factor.” See id. As noted above, however, the court twice stated
   that it did not take the allegation of child abuse into consideration. Even if it
   had, however, the court, would not have erred because that allegation was
   “supported by evidence” and contained sufficient “indicia of reliability,
   such as the factual underpinnings of the conduct giving rise to the arrest.”
   See United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 687 (5th Cir. 2020). The evidence
   before the court of Hamm’s child abuse included (1) a revocation petition
   with a detailed factual basis, (2) the sheriff’s incident report, and (3) the
   testimony of Hamm’s probation officer. And Hamm herself admitted some
   of the facts underlying the allegation. Even if we assume arguendo that the
   court partially based its sentence on the child-abuse allegation, there was no
   error: That allegation is supported by sufficiently reliable evidence. See id.;
   see also United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149, 153–54 (5th Cir. 2009).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4