Court Opinion

ID: 9907296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 01:00:30.482084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:36.046043
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10129         Document: 00516990735             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                      December 5, 2023
                                        No. 23-10129                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jordan Kilpatrick,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:16-CR-219-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jordan Kilpatrick appeals a sentence imposed after he violated the
   terms of his supervised release when he pleaded guilty to possession of and
   access with the intent to view child pornography involving a prepubescent
   minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B). Kilpatrick alleges that the
   district court impermissibly delegated sentencing authority to the probation

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10129      Document: 00516990735          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                    No. 23-10129

   officer because its order was ambiguous as to the term of supervised release
   that follows his re-imprisonment.
          Because Kilpatrick failed to raise this objection in the district court,
   we review for plain error. See United States v. Huerta, 994 F.3d 711, 716 (5th
   Cir. 2021). “If an error is not properly preserved, appellate-court authority
   to remedy the error . . . is strictly circumscribed.” Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009). To prevail, Kilpatrick must show that the district
   court made a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See
   United States v. Ramirez, 37 F.4th 233, 235 (5th Cir. 2022). If he meets this
   difficult standard, we have discretion to correct the error only if the error
   seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings. Id.
          Kilpatrick violated the terms of his supervised release approximately
   three-and-a-half years into his ten-year term. The district court ordered
   Kilpatrick re-incarcerated for eight months and stated that, “Upon
   completion of imprisonment, the defendant should continue to serve the
   balance of the term remaining of supervised release.” Kilpatrick contends
   that the term “balance” is “inherently ambiguous” and provides the
   probation officer with “authority to set the duration of the term of supervised
   release.”
          Given that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) provides, among other guidance, that
   “[a] term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the
   person is imprisoned” for more than thirty consecutive days, we do not agree
   that the order is ambiguous or that it reasonably leaves open the
   interpretations that Kilpatrick suggests. The “balance” of Kilpatrick’s term
   of supervised release is ten years minus the time he spent on supervised
   release prior to his re-incarceration. We also conclude that the probation
   officer is bound by the district court’s language and do not consider the

                                         2
Case: 23-10129     Document: 00516990735           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                    No. 23-10129

   officer’s execution of the order a delegation of judicial authority. Even
   accepting that there was an error here, Kilpatrick fails to provide direct
   precedent to prove that the error was clear or obvious. See United States v.
   Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2005).
          The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

                                         3