United States v. Wise ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60343 Document: 00516623655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60343 FILED
Summary Calendar January 26, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Latasha Wise,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:13-CR-90-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Latasha Wise appeals the sentence imposed following the district
court’s revocation of supervised release. She argues that the court erred by
rejecting her plea to violating the conditions of her supervised release and
that it abused its discretion by sentencing her to 24 months of imprisonment.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60343 Document: 00516623655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2023
No. 22-60343
Even if we assume arguendo that the same standards governing guilty
pleas applied to Wise’s revocation proceedings and that the district court was
required to articulate a good reason for rejecting her plea, the transcript of
the first revocation hearing reflects that the court did so. The court explained
that it rejected her plea because she equivocated about whether she knew that
she was violating the conditions of her supervised release, and Wise does not
address this reason in her brief. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262
(1971); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Martinez, 486 F.2d 15, 20 (5th Cir. 1973).
Asserting that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Chapter 7 of the Guidelines when imposing
her sentence, Wise argues that her sentence is unreasonable given the facts
of her case and her guidelines range. We review her procedural challenges
for plain error because she did not present these specific objections to the
district court. See United States v. Coto-Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583, 585-86 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 207 (2021). However, we review the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion under a plainly
unreasonable standard because she preserved this objection. See
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); United
States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court did not procedurally err, plainly or otherwise, in
imposing Wise’s revocation sentence because it expressly considered
Chapter 7 of the Guidelines at the final revocation hearing, where its lengthy
discussion of the sentence imposed reflects consideration of Wise’s
arguments and several applicable § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).
Wise has also failed to show that her sentence, the statutory maximum, is
substantively unreasonable. See Foley, 946 F.3d at 685. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2