Court Opinion

ID: 9891463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 18:00:32.471267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:24.668287
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30793        Document: 00516935519             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-30793                                    FILED
                                                                               October 18, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Percel Gomez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:22-CR-53-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Percel Gomez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and possess
   with intent to distribute, 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21
   U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced in June 2021 to time-served and 21
   months of supervised release.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30793      Document: 00516935519            Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                      No. 22-30793

          In August 2022, Gomez’ probation officer filed a petition asserting
   Gomez violated the conditions of his supervised release by: committing a
   state crime and possessing a controlled substance; knowingly communicating
   or interacting with a convicted felon without permission of his probation
   officer; and failing to report within 72 hours that he was questioned by a law-
   enforcement officer. The district court revoked Gomez’ supervised release
   and imposed an above-Guidelines 24-months’ sentence.
          Gomez contests the sentence as plainly unreasonable, asserting the
   court erred in balancing the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) (sentencing) and 3583(e)
   (revocation) factors. He highlights his severe medical condition and the
   Government’s failure to contest the mitigating evidence or advocate for a
   departure.
          Our court reviews challenges to revocation sentences under a two-
   step “plainly unreasonable” standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (review of
   sentence); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011) (adopting
   “plainly unreasonable” standard for revocation sentences). First, we review
   for significant procedural error or substantive unreasonableness. E.g., United
   States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2018). If there is error, our
   court considers whether “the identified error is obvious under existing law,
   such that the sentence is not just unreasonable but plainly unreasonable”. Id.
   (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
          A sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively
   unreasonable “only if it does not account for a factor that should have
   received significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
   improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the
   sentencing factors”. Id. at 685.
          Although Gomez’ medical issues are severe, he fails to show the court
   abused its discretion in weighing the factors. Before imposing sentence, it

                                           2
Case: 22-30793     Document: 00516935519           Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 22-30793

   considered Gomez’ serious medical condition, including a suitable medical
   center for federal prisoners being available; his history and characteristics,
   including his continued distribution of narcotics; the need for adequate
   deterrence; and the Guidelines commentary. See Guideline § 7B1.4, p.s.,
   cmt. n.4.
          Further, assuming Gomez preserved the issues, the Government’s
   failure to contest the mitigating evidence or request an above-Guidelines
   sentence are not statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) or
   3583(e) and does not render the sentence unreasonable. See Sanchez, 900
   F.3d at 685 (unaccounted-for factor is reason for vacating sentence). Finally,
   the court’s departure is not error as a matter of law because our court has
   routinely upheld revocation sentences exceeding the recommended range,
   even where the sentence is the statutory maximum. E.g., United States v.
   Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500–01 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming revocation sentence
   that was statutory maximum and more than five times above top of
   Guidelines sentencing range).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3