United States v. Villanueva ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50092 Document: 00516999143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50092
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Henry Villanueva,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:08-CR-232-6
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Henry Villanueva appeals the 36-month, above-guidelines sentence
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Villanueva
contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are
reviewed in a two-step process. United States v. Foley, 946 F.3d 681, 685 (5th
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50092 Document: 00516999143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-50092
Cir. 2020). We must first ensure the district court committed no significant
procedural error and then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id. Even if we determine that a revocation sentence was
unreasonable, we may vacate only if the error is “obvious under existing law,
so that the sentence is not just unreasonable but is plainly unreasonable.” Id.(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Villanueva did not object to the procedural reasonableness of his
sentence, objecting only to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed. We review his unpreserved argument for plain error and his
preserved argument for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitelaw,
580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sanchez, 900 F.3d 678,
685 (5th Cir. 2018). To establish plain error, Villanueva must show that the
district court committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial
rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if he
makes this showing, we will correct an error only if it seriously affected the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.First, Villanueva presents the unpreserved claim that the district court
failed to adequately explain the reasons for the above-guidelines sentence.
The district court is required to articulate the reasons for imposing an above-
guidelines sentence upon revocation of supervised release. United States v.
Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012). The explanation must be
sufficient to allow for meaningful review; however, there is no required
language, and implicit consideration of the sentencing factors is generally
sufficient. Id. Here, the district court adequately explained its reasons for
imposing the above-guidelines revocation sentence. The court confirmed
that it reviewed the policy statements in Chapter Seven and the relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and expressed that an above-guidelines
sentence was appropriate under the circumstances. In particular, the court
expressed concern that Villanueva “lack[ed] the desire to make levelheaded
2
Case: 23-50092 Document: 00516999143 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-50092
and rational decisions” and found that the guidelines range was inadequate
based, in part, on Villanueva’s history and characteristics and the need to
protect the public and deter future criminal conduct. See §§ 3583(e) &
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). Moreover, the sentence was imposed within the
framework of extensive knowledge and assessment of the circumstances: (1)
this same judge adjudicated Villanueva’s prior revocation on a different
conviction; (2) the court received evidence and testimony concerning the
conduct resulting in the underlying revocation; (3) the court considered the
violation grade and the applicable sentencing range; and (4) the court
considered Villanueva’s personal progress, including his completion of
numerous courses while incarcerated.
Even if Villanueva could show the district court’s explanation
constituted clear or obvious error, he has failed to show that his substantial
rights were affected or that this court should exercise its discretion to correct
the error, as “there is no indication that the district court would impose a
lighter sentence on remand and the record [is] more than sufficient for us to
assess the reasons and reasonableness of [Villanueva’s] sentence.”
Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264-65. Accordingly, Villanueva is unable to
demonstrate the requisite plain error. See id.; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
Second, Villanueva has failed to show that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable. There is no indication in the record that an
important factor was overlooked, that an improper factor was given
significant weight, or that the imposed sentence suggests a clear error of
judgment in the court’s balancing of the factors. See Foley, 946 F.3d at 685.
We will not reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute our own judgment
for that of the district court, as Villanueva suggests. See United States v.
Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
3