Court Opinion

ID: 9376191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 01:00:34.108105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.935189
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50345        Document: 00516661720             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 22-50345
                                 consolidated with                                   FILED
                                     No. 22-50352                                March 1, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Shawn Kaleb Drake,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                    Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 7:15-CR-81-1, 7:21-CR-364-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         In this consolidated appeal, Shawn Kaleb Drake appeals both the
   sentence imposed following revocation of a previously imposed term of
   supervised release (No. 22-50345) and the sentence imposed following his

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50345      Document: 00516661720           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/01/2023

                                       No. 22-50345
                                     c/w No. 22-50352
   guilty-plea   conviction    for     possession   with   intent   to   distribute
   methamphetamine (No. 22-50352).
          First, Drake argues that the district court failed to explain its decision
   to impose a consecutive revocation sentence. Because Drake failed to
   preserve this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. See United
   States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2013); Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Under plain error review, we first determine if
   there was a clear or obvious legal error which affected Drake’s substantial
   rights. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If Drake makes this showing, we have
   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 punctuation, quotation marks, and citation omitted).
          A sentencing court must provide reasons for imposing a particular
   sentence in enough detail “to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has
   considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its
   own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
   (2007). Before imposing the revocation sentence in this case, the district
   court stated only that it had reviewed the policy statements in the Sentencing
   Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. However, the
   revocation immediately followed Drake’s sentencing for the new
   methamphetamine offense, and the district court stated during the
   revocation proceeding that it would consider everything that had already
   been discussed. When sentencing Drake for the methamphetamine offense,
   the district court engaged in a more detailed consideration of the various
   § 3553(a) factors. In addition, the new methamphetamine sentence was
   ordered to run concurrently with certain pending state charges and
   consecutively to others, demonstrating that the district court was aware that
   it could impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence. Thus, the district
   court considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for its

                                            2
Case: 22-50345      Document: 00516661720          Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/01/2023

                                      No. 22-50345
                                    c/w No. 22-50352
   decision. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. Even if the district court erred, we
   conclude that Drake has not shown that his substantial rights were affected
   because he has not shown a reasonable probability “that an explanation
   would have changed his sentence.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564
   F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Second, Drake asserts that the district court ordered that two specific
   paragraphs should be stricken from the presentence report (PSR) for the
   methamphetamine offense, but this was never done. Subsequent to the filing
   of Drake’s brief, an amended PSR was prepared without these paragraphs,
   the record was supplemented with the amended PSR, and, according to the
   Government, the amended PSR was provided to the Bureau of Prisons.
   Because Drake has received the relief sought, we conclude that this issue is
   dismissed as moot. See, e.g., Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
   U.S. 9, 12 (1992).
          Third, Drake argues that, for both sentences, the district court erred
   by failing to reduce or adjust the sentence to account for time he spent in
   presentence detention. Again, we conclude that Drake failed to preserve this
   issue, see Warren, 720 F.3d at 327, so plain error review applies, Puckett, 556
   U.S. at 135. Drake argues that the district court believed he should receive
   some form of credit for this time, but it mistakenly believed that the Bureau
   of Prisons could award a credit and that it lacked authority to account for this
   time in another way. We conclude that Drake has not shown any clear or
   obvious error with respect to his sentences or that any error affected his
   substantial rights. See United States v. Aparicio, 963 F.3d 470, 477 (5th Cir.
   2020). Therefore, we affirm the imposition of his sentences.
          AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

                                           3