United States v. Willie Washington ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10728      Document: 00515385776         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10728                           April 17, 2020
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    WILLIE HUGH WASHINGTON,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CR-106-1
    Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Willie Hugh Washington appeals from the third revocation of his term of
    supervised release for his original conviction of conspiracy to possess with
    intent to distribute at least five grams of methamphetamine. For the third
    revocation, the district court sentenced Washington to three years of
    imprisonment and ten years of supervised release.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10728    Document: 00515385776     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    No. 19-10728
    Washington argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable
    because the district court treated the revocation as mandatory and failed to
    consider drug treatment as an alternative, as required under 18 U.S.C.
    § 3583(d). Additionally, he contends that the district court failed to consider
    his argument that his relapses into drug use were triggered by trauma.
    Washington did not preserve these issues for appellate review. See United
    States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 
    564 F.3d 357
    , 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
    The record indicates that the district court implicitly considered these
    concerns. Moreover, the district court provided a sufficient explanation for his
    above-guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 356-58
    (2007); United States v. Fraga, 
    704 F.3d 432
    , 439 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
    Washington has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain error
    by imposing a procedurally unreasonable sentence. See 
    Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361
    .
    In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Haymond,
    
    139 S. Ct. 2369
    (2019), Washington also argues that his sentence is
    procedurally unreasonable because the mandatory revocation and sentence of
    imprisonment required under § 3583(g) were unconstitutional.          However,
    because Washington raised this issue for the first time in his reply brief and
    because it did not derive from any new arguments raised by the Government
    on appeal, we will not consider this issue. See United States v. Rodriguez, 
    602 F.3d 346
    , 360 (5th Cir. 2010).
    In addition, Washington argues that his above-guidelines sentence was
    substantively unreasonable because his sentence of imprisonment was more
    than three times the upper end of the advisory guidelines range, because the
    district court failed to consider drug treatment as an alternative, because the
    total of his current and prior revocation sentences exceeds his original 60-
    2
    Case: 19-10728   Document: 00515385776      Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    No. 19-10728
    month sentence, and because his prior revocation sentences of imprisonment
    and supervised release were unsuccessful. However, he has not shown that
    the district court did not account for a sentencing factor that should have
    received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or
    improper factor, or made a clear error in judgment when balancing the
    sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 
    720 F.3d 321
    , 332 (5th Cir.
    2013).   Thus, he has not demonstrated that the district court imposed a
    sentence that was substantively unreasonable, plainly or otherwise.          See
    United States v. Miller, 
    634 F.3d 841
    , 843 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
    Rodriguez, 
    523 F.3d 519
    , 525 (5th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    3