United States v. Patel ( 2022 )

Case: 22-10021 Document: 00516557766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 28, 2022
No. 22-10021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mitesh Patel,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:21-CR-488-E
Before Graves, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mitesh Patel challenges the sentence imposed following the
revocation of his supervised release. He contends the district court erred
when it concluded that the categorical approach does not apply when
determining whether an offense qualifies as a “crime of violence” under
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10021 Document: 00516557766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-10021
Sentencing Guideline § 7B1.1(a). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
district court.
Patel was sentenced to thirty months of imprisonment to be followed
by five years of supervised release after pleading guilty to Bank Fraud. His
term of supervision began on May 28, 2020.
On October 20, 2021, a U.S. Probation Officer filed a Petition for
Court Action alleging that Mr. Patel had violated the terms of his supervised
release. According to the Petition, Patel was arrested and charged with,
among other things, Texas Assault Family Violence by Impeding Breath, a
third-degree felony. The Probation office classified Patel’s assault arrest as a
Grade A violation. Combined with his criminal history, his imprisonment
range was calculated to be 15−21 months.
Patel objected to the Grade A classification, arguing that the
applicable assault statute, Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B), does not
categorically qualify as a crime of violence because it is indivisible and can be
committed recklessly. Patel noted that if the district court sustained his
objection, the advisory policy statement range for a Grade B violation would
be lowered to 6 to 12 months.
On December 7, 2021, the district court held a revocation hearing.
During the hearing, Patel again urged the court to adopt the categorical
approach, and to accept his argument regarding his Grade B classification.
After hearing oral argument and considering the relevant case law, the
district court determined it should only look at Patel’s actual conduct under
§ 7B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The district court then found the allegations against Patel regarding
his assault charge true by a preponderance of the evidence and determined it
was a Grade A violation. The district court then revoked Patel’s supervised
release and sentenced him to 18 months of imprisonment.
2
Case: 22-10021 Document: 00516557766 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-10021
After the court pronounced the sentence, Patel asked if he had
sufficiently preserved his objection to the Grade A classification. The district
court expressed its belief it was properly preserved. The court was then asked
to state for the record “whether or not,” the sentence imposed would have
been the same regardless of the proper designation of the violation. After
noting Patel’s extensive criminal history and the violations at issue, the
district court agreed that the 18-month sentence was the proper sentence,
irrespective of the guideline recommendation.
On appeal, Patel argues the district court miscalculated the guidelines
imprisonment range for his offense. He challenges the district court’s
conclusion that his assault offense qualifies as a crime of violence under
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1), and urges us to adopt a “categorical approach,”
which considers only the elements of a specific offense in order to determine
whether it constitutes a “crime of violence.”1 Assuming, without deciding,
the district court erred in concluding that the categorical approach did not
apply, the error was harmless.
Here, the district court expressly stated that it would have imposed
the same 18-month sentence even if Patel’s conduct had been a Grade B
violation. This court has repeatedly held that “when a district court
1
We note that there is a circuit split as to whether the categorical approach applies to
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1), and that this circuit has not yet weighed in on the issue. Compare, e.g., United
States v. Garcia-Cartagena, 953 F.3d 14, 21, 24–25 (1st Cir. 2020) (applying the categorical ap-
proach); United States v. Willis, 795 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2015) (same), with United States v. Pitts,
739 F. App’x 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2018) (rejecting the categorical approach), United States v. Golden,
843 F.3d 1162, 1167 (7th Cir. 2016) (same). Nevertheless, the doctrine of judicial restraint dictates
that we decide cases on the best and narrowest grounds available. See Manning v. Upjohn Co., 862
F.2d 545, 547 (5th Cir. 1989) (“Principles of judicial restraint dictate that if resolution of an issue
effectively disposes of a case, we should resolve the case on that basis without reaching any other
issues that might be presented.”).
3
Case: 22-10021 Document: 00516557766 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-10021
entertains arguments as to the proper guidelines range and explicitly states
that it would have given the same sentence it did regardless, any error in the
range calculation is harmless.” United States v. Nanda, 867 F.3d 522, 531 (5th
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted); see United States v. Medel-Guadalupe, 987 F.3d
424, 429 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2545 (2021) (“[T]he district court
was aware of the guidelines range absent the enhancements because Medel-
Guadalupe advised the court of this range in his written PSR objections.”).
That is what happened here. Patel twice requested the alternative guidelines
range of 6−12 months. Nonetheless, the district court determined that an 18-
month sentence was fair and reasonable, even absent the determination of a
Grade A violation. The district court’s statements at sentencing, taken in
their totality, are sufficient to support the application of the harmless error
doctrine. United States v. Vega-Garcia, 893 F.3d 326, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the district court’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
4