Court Opinion

ID: 9396265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 00:00:26.098516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.723229
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60420        Document: 00516757134             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                    _____________                                FILED
                                                                             May 19, 2023
                                     No. 22-60420
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                 consolidated with                               Clerk
                                     No. 22-60421
                                   _____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gurdy Farmer,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                    Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                      USDC Nos. 3:19-CR-274-1, 4:13-CR-15-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Defendant-Appellant Gurdy Farmer challenges his statutory-
   maximum 36-month term of imprisonment imposed on revocation of his two
   terms of supervised release. Farmer contends that the district court
   substantively and procedurally erred by (1) selecting sentences based on
   clearly erroneous facts; (2) applying items of evidence to the sentencing

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60420     Document: 00516757134         Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60420
                                  c/w No. 22-60421

   factors, and (3) relying on extrajudicial sources that revealed an unfair bias
   towards Farmer. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s
   sentence regarding the two revocations of release.
                               I. BACKGROUND
          In 2013, Farmer pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3). He was sentenced to 18 months of
   imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2015, Farmer pleaded
   true to violating conditions of his supervised release and was sentenced to
   nine months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In 2019,
   after he again violated his supervised release, he was sentenced to 10 months
   of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Those violations also
   resulted in federal charges; in 2020, Farmer pleaded guilty to one count of
   felon in possession of firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was
   sentenced to a 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and three years
   of supervised release.
          In 2021, the probation office petitioned for a warrant, alleging that
   Farmer had violated the terms of his supervised release beginning in
   November of 2020 by testing positive for methamphetamine on two
   occasions. He also failed to notify his probation officer after he was
   questioned twice by the Choctaw Police Department, and he failed to notify
   his probation officer after moving from his reported address. At the
   revocation hearing, Farmer pleaded true to all allegations against him. During
   that hearing, the probation officer recommended a sentence of nine months
   of imprisonment for revocation of the terms of supervised release related to
   his initial 2013 conviction of abusive sexual contact (4:13-CR-15-HTW) and
   11 months of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release related to his
   2020 conviction of felon in possession (3:19-CR-274-HTW), to run

                                             2
Case: 22-60420      Document: 00516757134         Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60420
                                  c/w No. 22-60421

   consecutively. That resulted in a 20-month term of imprisonment. Farmer
   agreed with the recommendation of the probation office.
          At the revocation hearing, the district court found that Farmer had
   violated his supervised release conditions as alleged and sentenced him to the
   statutory maximum: a one-year term of imprisonment with five years of
   supervised release in 4:13-CR-15-HTW, to run consecutively to the two-year
   sentence with one year of supervised release imposed in 3:19-CR-274-HTW.
   These two revocation judgments resulted in a combined term of
   imprisonment of 36 months. At the end of the hearing, Farmer’s counsel
   objected to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence
   imposed, stating that “[w]e would for the record object to the reasonableness
   of the sentence, both procedurally and substantively.” Farmer timely filed
   notices of appeal.
                             II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          When a defendant preserves his objection for appeal, this court
   reviews a sentence imposed on revocation under the plainly unreasonable
   standard. United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 2020). Under that
   standard, this court first “ensure[s] that the district court committed no
   significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] §
   3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
   failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, including failing to explain
   a deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. at 685 (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). “If the district court’s sentencing decision lacks
   procedural error, this court next considers the substantive reasonableness of
   the sentence imposed.” United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.
   2012). A revocation sentence will be found 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)

                                              3
Case: 22-60420      Document: 00516757134         Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60420
                                  c/w No. 22-60421

   represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.”
   United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United
   States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2007)).
                                     III. ANALYSIS
          Farmer first challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence,
   alleging that the district court made two errors in its factual findings. He
   asserts that the district court erred in finding that he would present a threat
   to the public “if he’s out trying to drive from time to time.” Farmer claims
   that the district court lacked any evidentiary support for this finding because
   there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Farmer is
   ever likely to operate a vehicle. Farmer points out that he testified that he is
   homeless and does not own a car. Farmer also takes issue with the district
   court’s finding that he violated his probation by failing to report his changes
   of address to his probation officer. He asserts that there is no way he could
   have complied with this condition because he is homeless, which he alleges
   is the result of a special condition imposed at his 2019 revocation hearing.
          The district court considered Farmer’s recidivism and addiction in
   determining his sentences, but Farmer’s repeated supervised release
   violations, including his drug use and failure to report change of address, are
   undisputed and supported by the evidence of record. The record also
   demonstrates that Farmer was previously convicted for driving under the
   influence in 2007 and had numerous arrests for intoxication. Moreover,
   Farmer formally admitted that he violated the condition that he report any
   changes of address, and he did not object to the special condition imposed in
   2019 that allegedly led to his homelessness. Farmer did not contest any of
   those facts during the instant revocation hearing and has not shown that the
   district court relied on any erroneous information or that its factual findings

                                              4
Case: 22-60420      Document: 00516757134          Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                     No. 22-60420
                                   c/w No. 22-60421

   were not plausible in light of the record as a whole. See Warren, 720 F.3d at
   331; United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).
          Farmer also challenges the substantive reasonableness of the
   sentence, asserting that the district court erred by giving undue weight to
   some sentencing factors and by relying on extrajudicial sources that resulted
   in an unfair bias. At sentencing, the district court considered Farmer’s
   repeated noncompliance with his supervised release conditions and
   determined that another guidelines sentence would not adequately deter
   Farmer or others from unlawful conduct. The court ultimately decided that
   a sentence above the recommended sentencing range, but within the
   statutory maximum, was proper to satisfy the sentencing goals of § 3553(a).
          The record reflects that the district court undertook an individualized
   assessment of the facts and that its justification for imposing the revocation
   sentence was consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
   Farmer is correct that the district court alluded to extrajudicial evidence by
   opining on the efficacy of sober living facilities, yet he fails to show that the
   district court gave this evidence significant weight or that it was a dominant
   factor in the district court’s sentencing decision. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332.
   The remainder of Farmer’s argument amounts to a disagreement with the
   district court’s balancing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, which this court
   will not reweigh. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. Farmer has failed to show that
   his revocation sentences are plainly unreasonable. See id.
          Farmer’s 36-month sentence is the statutory maximum, but the
   district court could have imposed any sentence within the appropriate
   statutory maximum term of imprisonment. United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d
   807, 809 (5th Cir. 2012). This court has “routinely affirmed revocation
   sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the sentence equals the
   statutory maximum,” Warren, 720 F.3d at 332 (internal quotation marks and

                                              5
Case: 22-60420      Document: 00516757134         Page: 6     Date Filed: 05/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60420
                                  c/w No. 22-60421

   citation omitted); see also United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 89, 93-94 (5th
   Cir. 1994) (concluding sentence of 36 months of imprisonment was not
   plainly unreasonable when the policy-statement range was 12 months of
   imprisonment).
                                   IV. CONCLUSION
          The district court’s imposition of a 36-month term of imprisonment
   was not plainly unreasonable. Its two revocation judgments are
   AFFIRMED.

                                              6