Court Opinion

ID: 9555439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-12 00:00:21.574276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:35.460848
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20567         Document: 00516855433             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                 August 11, 2023
                                       No. 22-20567                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Clifton Joseph Goudeau, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CR-357-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Clifton Joseph Goudeau, Jr., was sentenced above the advisory
   guidelines range to 18 months of imprisonment, with no further term of
   supervision, following the revocation of his term of supervised release. He
   argues that the district court reversibly erred by considering the seriousness
   of the offense underlying the revocation when imposing the sentence.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20567     Document: 00516855433           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-20567

          For preserved errors, this court applies a “plainly unreasonable”
   standard to sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. United
   States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). This standard is “more
   deferential” than the general standard for reviewing the reasonableness of
   criminal sentences, and this court has observed that “the Sentencing
   Commission intended to give district courts substantial latitude in devising
   revocation sentences.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
   2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To prevail in a
   challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence, the
   defendant must show that the sentence was not only an abuse of discretion
   but also that “the error was obvious under existing law.” Id.
          The district court’s statements and its citation of the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) factors indicate that the primary factors behind the selected
   sentence were Goudeau’s actions in repeatedly committing offenses that he
   knew would violate his supervised release conditions and the need to protect
   the public from those acts. Although the district court mentioned the
   seriousness of the underlying offense, there is no indication that it was a
   dominant consideration in the selection of the revocation sentence or went
   beyond the scope of a breach of trust analysis. See United States v. Cano, 981
   F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020); U.S.S.G. Ch.7, Pt.A, (3)(b).
          We note that there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The
   judgment correctly notes that Violation 1 was discharged, but it also
   incorrectly lists Violation 1 as an additional violation. Accordingly, we
   remand for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in
   accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.
          AFFIRMED; LIMITED REMAND FOR CORRECTION
   OF CLERICAL ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT.

                                         2