United States v. Skaggs ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50296 Document: 00516655627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50296
FILED
February 24, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Andrea Nicole Skaggs,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-8
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Andrea Nicole Skaggs appeals the 8-month term of imprisonment
imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. Skaggs asserts
that her revocation sentence, which was within the range recommended by
the policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines, is substantively
_____________________
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-50296 Document: 00516655627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-50296
unreasonable. Specifically, she argues that the district court erred in light of
the president’s blanket pardon for marijuana possession offences.
We review her sentence under the plainly unreasonable standard. See
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020); United
States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v.
Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020). The record reflects that the district
court’s explanation for the chosen revocation sentence was reasoned, fact-
specific, and consistent with the statutory sentencing factors relevant to
revocation sentences. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332-33. The marijuana
offense pardon is irrelevant because Skaggs has never been accused or
convicted of possessing marijuana; she was originally convicted and
sentenced for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
and then violated the terms of her supervised release by using marijuana. A
district court can impose and enforce a condition of supervised release which
prohibits a defendant from using any intoxicating substance whether legal or
illegal. See United States v. Vigil, 989 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir. 2021). The
district court did not abuse its discretion or impose a substantively
unreasonable revocation sentence. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2