United States v. Jason Martinez ( 2020 )

Case: 19-11366 Document: 00515540173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 25, 2020
No. 19-11366 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jason Alfred Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-192-3
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jason Alfred Martinez appeals the 12-month sentence imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the
district court’s upward variance amounted to a clear error of judgment in
balancing the sentencing factors because it failed to give adequate weight to
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 19-11366 Document: 00515540173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
No. 19-11366
the fact that Martinez primarily complied with his supervised release
conditions prior to his mother’s death, which affected him significantly.
We review a revocation sentence to determine whether it is “plainly
unreasonable.” See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 842-43 (5th Cir.
2011). Martinez must show that the sentence was not only an abuse of
discretion but also that “the error was obvious under existing law.” United
States v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable
where 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. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir.
2013).
At the revocation hearing, the district court considered the policy-
statement range, stated that the sentence was based on the need for
deterrence and to address the violation conduct, and, as Martinez admits,
directly addressed his mitigation argument. In light of Martinez’s multiple
violations of his supervised release conditions, it found that a sentence two-
months above the advisory range was necessary. Martinez fails to show that
the district court made a clear error in judgment when balancing the
sentencing factors. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332; Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
AFFIRMED.
2