Court Opinion

ID: 9909330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 01:00:31.030447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:53.852354
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50092         Document: 00516999143             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50092
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 12, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Henry Villanueva,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:08-CR-232-6
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Henry Villanueva appeals the 36-month, above-guidelines sentence
   imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Villanueva
   contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
          Sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are
   reviewed in a two-step process. United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50092       Document: 00516999143          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-50092

   Cir. 2020). We must first ensure the district court committed no significant
   procedural error and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
   sentence.   Id.   Even if we determine that a revocation sentence was
   unreasonable, we may vacate only if the error is “obvious under existing law,
   so that the sentence is not just unreasonable but is plainly unreasonable.” Id.
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Villanueva did not object to the procedural reasonableness of his
   sentence, objecting only to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
   imposed. We review his unpreserved argument for plain error and his
   preserved argument for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitelaw,
   580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678,
   685 (5th Cir. 2018). To establish plain error, Villanueva must show that the
   district court committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial
   rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if he
   makes this showing, we will correct an error only if it seriously affected the
   fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
          First, Villanueva presents the unpreserved claim that the district court
   failed to adequately explain the reasons for the above-guidelines sentence.
   The district court is required to articulate the reasons for imposing an above-
   guidelines sentence upon revocation of supervised release. United States v.
   Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012). The explanation must be
   sufficient to allow for meaningful review; however, there is no required
   language, and implicit consideration of the sentencing factors is generally
   sufficient. Id. Here, the district court adequately explained its reasons for
   imposing the above-guidelines revocation sentence. The court confirmed
   that it reviewed the policy statements in Chapter Seven and the relevant 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and expressed that an above-guidelines
   sentence was appropriate under the circumstances. In particular, the court
   expressed concern that Villanueva “lack[ed] the desire to make levelheaded

                                          2
Case: 23-50092      Document: 00516999143           Page: 3     Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-50092

   and rational decisions” and found that the guidelines range was inadequate
   based, in part, on Villanueva’s history and characteristics and the need to
   protect the public and deter future criminal conduct. See §§ 3583(e) &
   3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). Moreover, the sentence was imposed within the
   framework of extensive knowledge and assessment of the circumstances: (1)
   this same judge adjudicated Villanueva’s prior revocation on a different
   conviction; (2) the court received evidence and testimony concerning the
   conduct resulting in the underlying revocation; (3) the court considered the
   violation grade and the applicable sentencing range; and (4) the court
   considered Villanueva’s personal progress, including his completion of
   numerous courses while incarcerated.
          Even if Villanueva could show the district court’s explanation
   constituted clear or obvious error, he has failed to show that his substantial
   rights were affected or that this court should exercise its discretion to correct
   the error, as “there is no indication that the district court would impose a
   lighter sentence on remand and the record [is] more than sufficient for us to
   assess the reasons and reasonableness of [Villanueva’s] sentence.”
   Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264-65. Accordingly, Villanueva is unable to
   demonstrate the requisite plain error. See id.; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Second, Villanueva has failed to show that his sentence was
   substantively unreasonable. There is no indication in the record that an
   important factor was overlooked, that an improper factor was given
   significant weight, or that the imposed sentence suggests a clear error of
   judgment in the court’s balancing of the factors. See Foley, 946 F.3d at 685.
   We will not reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our own judgment
   for that of the district court, as Villanueva suggests. See United States v.
   Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3