Court Opinion

ID: 9926107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 19:01:07.346914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.104411
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30342         Document: 00517041267             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/23/2024

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

                                       No. 23-30342                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                           January 23, 2024
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Charles D. Cloud,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 5:10-CR-256-4
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Charles D. Cloud appeals the 36-month, above-guidelines sentence
   imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that
   his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
   improperly based its sentence on the seriousness of his underlying violations.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30342         Document: 00517041267              Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/23/2024

                                          No. 23-30342

           Although Cloud’s request for a lesser sentence in the district court
   was sufficient to preserve a general substantive reasonableness claim, see
   Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020), it was not
   sufficient to preserve the specific claim that the court relied on an improper
   factor in its sentencing decision, see United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th
   477, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we review his specific substantive
   reasonableness claim for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 135 (2009).
           The district court found at sentencing that Cloud pleaded guilty to
   misdemeanor charges arising from an incident in which he shot a man who
   was arguing with a woman outside of Cloud’s residence. 1 The court stated
   that a 36-month sentence was necessary to prevent future criminal activity
   and protect the public from Cloud’s further crimes. It is therefore clear from
   the record that the court considered Cloud’s violation conduct in the context
   of “his propensity to commit future crimes and/or threaten public safety,”
   which are “permissible purposes of a revocation sentence.” United States v.
   Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, Cloud fails to show
   the court committed clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
           Insofar as Cloud generally challenges the extent of the upward
   variance, we review his preserved argument for an abuse of discretion. See
   Sanchez, 900 F.3d at 685. Cloud fails to show the district court abused its
   discretion in imposing the 36-month sentence. This is well within the range
   of upward variances that we have previously affirmed. See, e.g., United States
   v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012).

           _____________________
           1
            To the extent that Cloud’s counseled brief can be interpreted as attempting to
   challenge the court’s reliance on police reports in making this finding, Cloud has
   abandoned any such challenge by failing to brief it. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d
   433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).

                                                2
Case: 23-30342   Document: 00517041267        Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/23/2024

                               No. 23-30342

         The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                    3