Court Opinion

ID: 9407973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 00:00:31.558781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.017806
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50752         Document: 00516815366             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50752
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Eric Hernandez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:16-CR-197-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Eric Hernandez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon
   revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his due process rights
   were violated when the district court revoked his supervised release and
   based his revocation sentence on abandoned, unproved allegations in the
   petitions to revoke.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50752      Document: 00516815366          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                    No. 22-50752

          Inasmuch as Hernandez contends that the revocation of his
   supervised release was error, the argument is meritless. As Hernandez
   concedes, he pleaded true to the charged supervised release violation based
   on his new felon-in-possession offense. The district court thus did not abuse
   its discretion in revoking his release. See United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d
   479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). To the extent that
   Hernandez contends that the district court violated his due process rights by
   varying upwardly from the guidelines range to impose the statutory
   maximum sentence without full disclosure of the evidence against him and
   the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses, the argument is
   unavailing as his challenge to his sentence does not implicate any due process
   concerns. See United States v. Williams, 847 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Hernandez argues that the revocation sentence is substantively
   unreasonable, urging that the district court erroneously varied upwardly to
   the statutory maximum sentence based on impermissible factors, the charged
   supervised release violations which the Government abandoned at
   revocation.   The record demonstrates that the district court explicitly
   considered the advisory guidelines range but balanced that against the nature
   and circumstances of Hernandez’s supervised release violation and his
   history and characteristics and found that the guidelines range was
   inappropriate. The district court ultimately concluded that the 24-month,
   above-guidelines sentence was necessary to provide adequate deterrence and
   to protect the public from future crimes—factors that were appropriate for
   the district court to consider in imposing the revocation sentence and which
   this court will not reweigh. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);
   § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C).         Hernandez’s
   assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, the court never referenced an
   impermissible factor. See § 3553(a)(2)(A); cf. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d
   841, 842, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the extent of the upward variance,

                                              2
Case: 22-50752     Document: 00516815366           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                    No. 22-50752

   from a range of four to 10 months to a sentence of 24 months, does not
   constitute an abuse of discretion as this court has routinely upheld larger
   variances, even where the sentence is the statutory maximum. See, e.g.,
   United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v.
   Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Whitelaw, 580
   F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009).
         Hernandez has not shown that his revocation sentence is plainly
   unreasonable. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 326, 332; Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
   Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             3