Court Opinion

ID: 9386309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 00:00:25.325365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.491238
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30411         Document: 00516708357             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                              April 11, 2023
                                       No. 22-30411
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Brandon L. Hunt,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:15-CR-39-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Brandon L. Hunt was sentenced above the Guidelines range to 24
   months of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release.
   On appeal, Hunt asserts that the district court reversibly erred by considering
   an impermissible factor —promoting respect for the law — in imposing the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30411      Document: 00516708357           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/11/2023

                                     No. 22-30411

   revocation sentence. He further asserts that his revocation sentence was
   substantively unreasonable.
          The Government filed an opposed motion to supplement the record
   on appeal with the violation worksheet and to place the supplemental record
   under seal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) allows for the
   supplementation of the record “[i]f anything material to either party is
   omitted from . . . the record by error or accident.” The violation worksheet
   was relied upon in the district court and, thus, is material to the issue on
   appeal. See Waguespack v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 795 F.2d 523, 525 (5th Cir.
   1986). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to supplement the record is
   GRANTED, and the clerk’s office is directed to place the supplemental
   record under seal.
          During a defendant’s initial sentencing, the district court must
   consider, among other factors, the need for the sentence “to reflect the
   seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
   punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The Section
   3552(a)(2)(A) factors, however, may not be considered when fashioning a
   revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). United States v. Sanchez, 900
   F.3d 678, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2018). A retribution-based sentencing error
   occurs when the “impermissible consideration is a dominant factor in the
   court’s revocation sentence, but not when it is merely a secondary concern
   or an additional justification for the sentence.” United States v. Rivera, 784
   F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Hunt did not object on this ground
   in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Cano,
   981 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2020). Hunt fails to demonstrate any error in this
   respect, much less one that was clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

                                              2
Case: 22-30411     Document: 00516708357           Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/11/2023

                                    No. 22-30411

          Finally, Hunt     preserved his        challenge   to the substantive
   reasonableness of his sentence when he objected to the excessiveness of his
   sentence in the district court. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S.
   Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020). A preserved challenge to a revocation sentence is
   reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. Sanchez, 900 F.3d at
   682. Hunt fails to show that the sentence above the advisory range was
   plainly unreasonable.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             3