United States v. Husk ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50720
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEAN VERNON HUSK,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-98-CR-249-ALL-JN
--------------------
December 12, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sean Vernon Husk appeals his sentence following the
revocation of his supervised release after his guilty-plea
conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Husk argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable because the
district court did not adequately consider the statutory factors
regarding the violations for which revocation was sought and gave
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-50720
-2-
improper weight to the domestic-violence charge that already had
been relied on to modify the supervised-release terms
After revoking a defendant’s supervised release, a district
court must consider the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
in determining the sentence to be imposed. See United States v.
Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2001). Consideration
of those factors need not be explicit. See id. at 930. Because
there are no binding guidelines for sentencing after the
revocation of supervised release, such a sentence will be upheld
unless it is imposed in violation of law or is plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 920
(5th Cir. 1994).
Husk admitted to violating the conditions of supervised
release. The court also considered testimony of a woman who had
filed assault charges against him. In addition to describing the
assault, she testified that Husk had exhibited a pattern of
anger-control problems, that he was manipulative, and that he did
not believe that he should have to follow rules. Her testimony
addressed the need for the sentence to deter Husk’s criminal
conduct and protect the public from his recidivism, two of the
factors to be considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See
Gonzalez, 250 F.3d at 929 & n.9.
Contrary to Husk’s assertions, the entire record indicates
that the district court did consider the relevant sentencing
factors in determining his sentence. See id. at 930. Although
No. 02-50720
-3-
in excess of the suggested range, the sentence is not plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1097
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.