United States v. Brian Hebert

Case: 19-30554 Document: 00515310213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-30554
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 13, 2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BRIAN KEITH HEBERT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:13-CR-315-7
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Brian Keith Hebert appeals the sentence imposed following the
revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the ten-month term of
imprisonment was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than
necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing.
We typically review a revocation sentence to determine whether it is
“plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-30554 Document: 00515310213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
No. 19-30554
2011). 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). Revocation
sentences within the advisory guideline range are presumptively reasonable.
See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008).
Here, Hebert fails to show that his sentence was unreasonable, much
less plainly so. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843; see also United States v. Rodriguez,
602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 2010) (concluding that we need not resolve which
standard of review governs as the appellant’s argument failed under the
standard more favorable to the appellant). The district court found that
Hebert’s multiple positive drugs tests within the span of less than a year
warranted a sentence near the bottom of the guideline range. Hebert fails to
overcome the presumption that the sentence was reasonable. See Warren, 720
F.3d at 332-33; Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d at 809.
AFFIRMED.
2