Court Opinion

ID: 9409031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 18:00:50.779857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.457425
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40839       Document: 00516820903             Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                  July 14, 2023
                                     No. 22-40839
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Bradley Jeremiah Bolden,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:21-CR-614-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and deGravelles,
   District Judge.1
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Bradley Jeremiah Bolden (“Bolden”) appeals the district
   court’s revocation sentence. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM
   the district court’s sentence.

          _____________________
          1
             United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by
   designation.
          *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Judge
   Haynes concurs in the judgment only.
Case: 22-40839      Document: 00516820903           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-40839

                                   I. Background
          In 2021, Bolden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport and move
   within the United States an alien who had come to, entered, and remained in
   the United States in violation of law. Bolden was sentenced to five months of
   imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. Bolden did
   not appeal his conviction or sentence. He began serving his supervised
   release on August 6, 2021.
          In October 2021, the probation officer filed a report indicating that
   Bolden submitted a urine sample that tested positive for marijuana. The
   probation officer recommended that Bolden continue on supervised release,
   as she warned Bolden that further noncompliance could result in revocation
   proceedings and the district court could address the violation at a later date.
   The district court concurred with the probation officer’s recommendation.
          In July 2022, Bolden’s new probation officer submitted a petition for
   a warrant or summons, alleging that Bolden violated the terms of his
   supervised release. The probation officer recommended that his supervised
   release be revoked. The district court ordered the issuance of a warrant and
   no bond. Bolden was arrested on November 1, 2022.
          In December 2022, the probation officer submitted a superseding
   petition for warrant or summons and recommended that Bolden’s supervised
   release be revoked. The superseding petition alleged that Bolden violated the
   terms of his supervised release by (1) testing positive for marijuana; (2) failing
   “to submit to urine surveillance”; (3) failing to participate in drug and
   alcohol treatment, as directed, by failing to submit to drug tests; (4) failing to
   participate in mental health treatment, as directed; (5) failing to contact his
   assigned probation officer as instructed; (6) failing to report to the U.S.
   Probation Office as instructed by his probation officer; (7) failing to notify his
   probation officer prior to his change in employment; (8) “leaving the judicial

                                           2
Case: 22-40839      Document: 00516820903          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-40839

   district without permission”; (9) failing to notify his probation officer within
   72 hours of arrest; and (10) failing to pay the $100 special assessment.
          At the revocation hearing, Bolden pleaded true to leaving the judicial
   district without permission (allegation 8) and failing to make any payments
   towards the $100 special assessment (allegation 10). The Government
   moved to dismiss the remaining 8 allegations. The Government argued that
   an upward variance “well above the recommended [guidelines] range” was
   appropriate. It argued that Bolden engaged in “countless supervised release
   violations.” It maintained that his supervised release violations were “well
   outside the norm” because of his “ongoing conduct from the time of his
   release” and “in particular, his vulgar and just plain rude behavior toward
   the Probation Officer.” The Government pointed out that Bolden’s original
   sentence was “quite low[,]” as he received a below-guidelines sentence of
   only five months. It argued that Bolden had “yet to receive a sentence which
   has effectively taught him respect for the law.”
          In response, Bolden, through counsel, asked for a sentence of time
   served with the termination of supervised release so that he could “get back
   to his family and save his business.” He noted that he had been detained
   almost two months. In the alternative, Bolden asked that his term of
   supervised release term “continue until it was originally set to expire.” He
   emphasized his lack of criminal history and noted that he is not one “well
   versed in navigating” supervised release requirements. Bolden also
   highlighted that his supervised release violations were technical in nature.
          The district court stated that it reviewed Bolden’s file carefully, as
   well as the letters from Bolden’s family and friends. The district court
   expressed that it “[did]n’t quite get it[,]” noting that Bolden was 29 years
   old, knew what he needed to be doing, “[b]ut for whatever reason, [he]
   decided that [he] just [was]n’t going to do it.” The district court highlighted

                                          3
Case: 22-40839     Document: 00516820903          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                   No. 22-40839

   that Bolden was convicted of “a very serious offense” that had
   consequences, including compliance with the conditions of supervised
   release. The district court told Bolden that he needed to comply with the
   imposed conditions of supervised release, as they were part of his sentence.
          The district court stated that “a sentence at the top end of the
   Guideline [wa]s warranted in this case due to the characteristics of the
   Defendant and to promote respect for the law.” It sentenced Bolden at the
   high-end of the guidelines range, to nine months of imprisonment, to be
   followed by 27 months of supervised release. The district court noted that
   the revocation sentence “addresse[d] the sentencing objectives in
   accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Bolden objected to the district
   “[c]ourt’s consideration of the need to promote respect for the law in
   evaluating his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3583(c).” Bolden’s attorney
   explained that “[t]he need to promote respect for the law is not one of the
   factors to be considered in deciding supervised release terms[,]” stating that
   he “just note[d] that for the record.” In response, the district court stated
   “[g]reat” and moved on. Bolden timely filed a notice of appeal.
                                II. Legal Standard
          We review a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release
   under a “plainly unreasonable” standard, in a two-step process. United States
   v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). First, we “ensure that the
   district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
   consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
   erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence,
   including failing to explain a deviation from the Guidelines range.” United
   States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks
   omitted). “If the district court’s sentencing decision lacks procedural error,
   this court next considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence

                                         4
Case: 22-40839      Document: 00516820903           Page: 5     Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-40839

   imposed.” Id. If we find the sentence unreasonable, we may reverse the
   district court only if we further determine “the error was obvious under
   existing law.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).
   Where, as here, the appellant argues that the district court’s consideration of
   an improper factor in crafting a revocation sentence is both a procedural and
   substantive error, this court need not distinguish between the two in its
   analysis. See United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 683 (5th Cir. 2018). “[A]
   sentencing error occurs when an 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) (citing United States v.
   Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir.2014)).
                                   III. Discussion
          Bolden argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively
   unreasonable because the district court considered the need to promote
   respect for the law in determining its sentence. However, the supervised
   release hearing transcript makes plain that the district court was primarily
   focused on other factors, namely, Bolden’s many alleged violations of his
   supervised release including (1) testing positive for marijuana; (2) failing “to
   submit to urine surveillance”; (3) failing to participate in drug and alcohol
   treatment, as directed, by failing to submit to drug tests; (4) failing to
   participate in mental health treatment, as directed; (5) failing to contact his
   assigned probation officer as instructed; (6) failing to report to the U.S.
   Probation Office as instructed by his probation officer; (7) failing to notify his
   probation officer prior to his change in employment; (8) “leaving the judicial
   district without permission”; (9) failing to notify his probation officer within
   72 hours of arrest; and (10) failing to pay the $100 special assessment; as well
   as his rude behavior towards his probation officer. Read in context, “respect
   for the law” was “an additional justification” for Bolden’s sentence, not a

                                           5
Case: 22-40839         Document: 00516820903       Page: 6    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-40839

   “dominant factor.” Rivera, 784 F.3d at 1017. The court’s statement
   demonstrates that the court was primarily frustrated with Bolden’s pattern
   of noncompliance with the terms of his supervised release and chose the
   sentence to afford adequate deterrence and sanction Bolden for his breach of
   the court’s trust. These are permissible considerations in a revocation
   hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B); United
   States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining “[a] sentence
   imposed on revocation of supervised release punishes a breach of trust for
   violating the conditions of supervision”(citation omitted)); U.S.S.G. Ch. 7,
   Pt. A, intro. comment 3(b) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2014) (explaining
   when imposing revocation sentence, court primarily sanctions defendant’s
   breach of trust).
          For the reasons stated above, we hold that the dominant factor
   motivating the district court’s sentencing decision was Bolden’s multiple
   violations of his supervised release. We acknowledge that, at a single point in
   the record, the district court mentioned Bolden’s lack of respect for the law.
   But having reviewed the record in its entirety, we cannot say that this singular
   mention constituted a dominant factor in the district court’s analysis given
   the alleged violations, the testimony of his probation officer, Bolden’s
   allocution, and the district court’s statements. Accordingly, Bolden has not
   demonstrated a sentencing error, plain or otherwise.
                                  IV. Conclusion
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.

                                          6