Court Opinion

ID: 9391583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 18:00:31.771775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.181273
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10824        Document: 00516734013             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10824
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 2, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Gregory P. Damm,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

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

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Gregory P. Damm challenges the five-year additional term of
   supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. See 18
   U.S.C. § 3583(h). He contends that the district court erroneously believed
   that the five-year term was the statutorily mandated minimum and that the
   error affected his substantial rights and, therefore, was not harmless. See

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10824     Document: 00516734013            Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                    No. 22-10824

   United States v. Campos, 922 F.3d 686, 688-89 (5th Cir. 2019); United States
   v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005).
          A district court commits clear error when it determines that a
   defendant is subject to a mandatory minimum term of supervised release
   upon revocation. Campos, 922 F.3d at 688-89; see § 3583(h). In this case, the
   district court stated, “I’m constrained by the law and have to give you five
   years, 60 months, additional supervised release time.” In imposing the
   sentence, the district court again noted that the five-year term was “required
   by statute.” When defense counsel objected and pointed out that § 3583(h)
   “gives the Court discretion to impose any term that it sees fit,” the district
   court responded, “Then I’ll correct myself. I felt that it was reasonable and
   necessary to give him five years.” After defense counsel reiterated the
   objection to the five-year term of supervised release, the district court
   provided reasons for imposing the sentence that were based on the nature of
   the underlying offense, Damm’s history and characteristics, and the need to
   protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court’s comments
   reflect that defense counsel’s objections made it aware that it could impose
   fewer than five years of supervised release but that it believed the
   circumstances of the case warranted the sentence. Cf. United States v.
   Garcia-Ortiz, 310 F.3d 792, 795 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, there was no error.
          In any event, any error was harmless because the record demonstrates
   that there was no “reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the
   error.” Campos, 922 F.3d at 689 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted); see English, 400 F.3d at 276. The district court clearly stated that
   it would impose a five-year term of supervised release even though the
   sentence was not mandatory, emphasizing that it believed a five-year
   supervised release term was appropriate based on the nature of the
   underlying offense, Damm’s history and characteristics, and the need to

                                             2
Case: 22-10824     Document: 00516734013        Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                 No. 22-10824

   protect the public from further criminal behavior by Damm. See § 3553(a);
   English, 400 F.3d at 276.
          Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          3