United States v. Carlton Taylor , 630 F. App'x 350 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-10557      Document: 00513346699         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 15-10557
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                        January 19, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                        Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    CARLTON RAY TAYLOR,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:11-CR-2
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Defendant-Appellant Carlton Ray Taylor appeals the 12-month above-
    guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of
    his supervised release stemming from his conviction for bank robbery. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e). The revocation was based on Taylor’s possession and use of
    cocaine, in violation of the express conditions of his release. Taylor contends
    on appeal that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 15-10557      Document: 00513346699     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    No. 15-10557
    court failed to explain adequately its reasons for imposing an above-guidelines
    sentence. Taylor failed to lodge an objection following the imposition of the
    challenged sentence, so we review the district court’s decision for plain error.
    See United States v. Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d 256
    , 259 (5th Cir. 2009); Puckett v.
    United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009).
    “A district court may impose any sentence upon revocation of supervised
    release that falls within the statutory maximum term allowed for the
    revocation sentence, but must consider the factors enumerated in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) and the policy statements before doing so.” United States v. Davis,
    
    602 F.3d 643
    , 646 (5th Cir. 2010). A court must provide some explanation if it
    imposes a revocation sentence outside the advisory guidelines range, but that
    burden is not an onerous one. See Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d at 261-62
    . Moreover,
    appellate review of supervised release revocation sentences is more deferential
    than is appellate review of original sentences. United States v. Miller, 
    634 F.3d 841
    , 843 (5th Cir. 2011).
    Taylor’s 12-month sentence falls within the statutory maximum term of
    revocation. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3). He nevertheless contends that the
    district court’s barebones reference to the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors of
    deterrence and protection of the public, without specific application to the facts
    of his case, failed to explain adequately its decision to impose an above-
    guidelines sentence in light of the compelling reasons favoring a within-
    guidelines term. The revocation hearing transcript reflects that the district
    court heard argument from Taylor’s counsel in favor of a sentence within the
    guidelines range. In addition, the district court had before it evidence of
    Taylor’s possession and use of illegal drugs—in direct contravention of the
    supervised release conditions—which included his affirmative admission of
    guilt.    The district court also implicitly considered the supervised release
    2
    Case: 15-10557     Document: 00513346699     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/19/2016
    No. 15-10557
    violation report’s guidelines calculation of three to nine months. Given these
    facts, the court’s decision to impose an above-guidelines sentence represents
    an implicit rejection of Taylor’s pleas for leniency. See Rita v. United States,
    
    551 U.S. 338
    , 356-59 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez, 
    523 F.3d 519
    , 524-26
    (5th Cir. 2008).
    Although brief, the district court’s stated reasons “adequately explain
    the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote
    the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 50 (2007).
    Accordingly, the sentencing court did not commit clear or obvious procedural
    error with respect to its explanation of Taylor’s above-guidelines revocation
    sentence. See Puckett, 
    556 U.S. at 135
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3