Court Opinion

ID: 9951151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 18:01:19.768463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:31.820909
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30430           Document: 76-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-30430
                                 Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                 ____________                                March 15, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Troy A. Bell,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 3:14-CR-51-2
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      The district court revoked Troy A. Bell’s supervised release and
sentenced him to 24-months’ imprisonment for violating a condition of
supervision by unlawfully possessing marihuana. Bell contends the court
procedurally erred by basing its sentence on clearly-erroneous facts: those
surrounding a new arrest detailed in the violation worksheet.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30430        Document: 76-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-30430

       Because Bell preserved his objection to the reasonableness of his
revocation sentence, review is under the “plainly unreasonable” standard.
E.g., United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Fed.
R. Crim. P. 51(b) (outlining error preservation). Under that standard, our
court first considers whether the district court committed a procedural error,
such as selecting a sentence based on clearly-erroneous facts. E.g., Foley, 946
F.3d at 685. If there is no procedural error, our court next considers the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. E.g., United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326, 332 (5th Cir.
2013). A sentence based on erroneous and material information violates due
process. Id. at 330–31. “[T]he burden is on the defendant to demonstrate
that the district court relied on materially untrue information”. Id. at 331
(citation omitted).
       Revocation sentencing proceedings are “relatively informal” and the
rules of evidence do not apply. Id. at 329; Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3)
(explaining Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to revocation
proceedings); United States v. Williams, 847 F.3d 251, 253 (5th Cir. 2017).
Bell cites no precedent supporting his claim that the violation worksheet
cannot be considered or must be admitted into evidence. Neither does he
present any evidence to contradict the accuracy of the worksheet.
Additionally, the court stated it was basing the revocation sentence solely on
the admitted drug use. Bell, therefore, fails to show the district court based
its sentence on erroneous facts. See, e.g., Foley, 946 F.3d at 685 (outlining
standard). Even if it did, Bell also fails to show the court relied on the facts
in the worksheet as a dominant factor in imposing the sentence. See id. at 687
(“Even when the district court considers an impermissible factor in imposing
a revocation sentence, we will not vacate that sentence unless the
impermissible factor was a dominant factor in the court’s decision.”).

                                       2
Case: 23-30430       Document: 76-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                No. 23-30430

      Although Bell erroneously classifies his sentence as an upward
departure, the court sentenced him to 12-months’ imprisonment on both
counts of his original conviction, and his consecutive sentences were within
the applicable Guidelines sentencing range.         See Guideline § 7B1.4(a)
(providing “Revocation Table”); United States v. Ybarra, 289 F. App’x 726,
730 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 926–29
(5th Cir. 2001)) (explaining consecutive sentences within Guidelines
sentencing range for each count is not upward variance). To the extent Bell
contends his 24-months’ sentence is plainly unreasonable, a presumption of
reasonableness applies to his within-Guidelines sentence. See United States
v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying
presumption). He has not shown the district court failed to consider a
significant factor, gave weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or
otherwise committed a clear error of judgment when balancing the
sentencing factors. See, e.g., Warren, 720 F.3d at 332 (identifying how
sentence can be substantively unreasonable).
      AFFIRMED.

                                      3