Court Opinion

ID: 9410350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 00:00:38.608384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.067348
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50992        Document: 00516828181             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/20/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50992
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 20, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Kimberly Sue Pierce,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:13-CR-348-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Smith, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Kimberly Sue Pierce appeals the 36-month, above-guidelines sentence
   imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. She contends
   that her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable for three
   reasons, and we address each one in turn.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50992        Document: 00516828181         Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                     No. 22-50992

          Sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are
   reviewed in a two-step process. United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th
   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 only vacate 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). Pierce contends that the
   plainly unreasonable standard is incorrect and that revocation sentences
   should be reviewed under the standard of reasonableness set forth in United
   States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). She acknowledges that this argument
   is foreclosed but seeks to preserve the issue for further review.
          Pierce did not object to the reasonableness of her sentence on two of
   the three grounds now presented on appeal. We review her unpreserved
   arguments for plain error and her preserved argument for abuse of discretion.
   See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009);
   United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). To establish plain
   error, Pierce must show that the district court committed a clear or obvious
   error that affected her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 135 (2009). Even if she 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, Pierce 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

                                               2
Case: 22-50992       Document: 00516828181              Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                       No. 22-50992

   sufficient. Id.    Here, before imposing the sentence, the district court
   expressed its evaluation of the factual circumstances and adequately
   articulated the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors upon which it relied.
   Accordingly, Pierce is unable to demonstrate the requisite plain error. See
   id.; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Second, for the first time on appeal, Pierce argues that the district
   court relied on prohibited sentencing factors, namely, punishment for the
   underlying criminal conduct resulting in the violation of supervision and her
   rehabilitative needs. Her argument is unavailing. Although the district court
   initially expressed concern that Pierce inherently possessed drugs to use
   them, it later removed the alleged possession violation from its calculation of
   the guidelines range and disregarded such criminal conduct from its
   sentencing determination. The record instead demonstrates that the court’s
   goal was to sanction Pierce’s “breach of trust” due to her repeated
   noncompliance with the conditions of her supervised release. See United
   States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Next, not only was her
   need for rehabilitation entirely absent from the court’s pronouncement, but
   so was Pierce’s drug use. Accordingly, Pierce is unable to show that either
   of these prohibited factors was considered, let alone dominant. See United
   States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, there was no plain
   error. See id.; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Finally, Pierce has failed to show that her 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 Pierce requests. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167
   (5th Cir. 2017). To the extent she argues that her sentence is plainly

                                                3
Case: 22-50992     Document: 00516828181           Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                    No. 22-50992

   unreasonable because it is nearly twice that of the top of the advisory range,
   such a variance does not warrant a different conclusion. We have “routinely
   affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the
   sentence equals the statutory maximum.” Warren, 720 F.3d at 332 (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted); see Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             4