USA v. Arnold Crayton
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10293 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 04/06/2015 for Appellant Arnold Crayton [14-10293]
Case: 14-10293
Document: 00512970405
Page: 1
Date Filed: 03/16/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-10293
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 16, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
v.
ARNOLD CRAYTON, also known as Lil Arnold,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-174
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In 2003, Arnold Crayton, federal prisoner # 29082-177, pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five
kilograms of a mixture and substance containing cocaine and 50 grams or more
of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. The district court sentenced
Crayton to 135 months of imprisonment and imposed a five-year term of
supervised release. In 2008, Crayton’s sentence was reduced to 120 months
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10293
Document: 00512970405
Page: 2
Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-10293
because the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines for offenses involving
cocaine base was made retroactive. In June 2010, Crayton began his five-year
term of supervised release. While on supervised release, Crayton was arrested,
charged, and convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He
was also found to be in possession of a Sig Sauer pistol, and he failed to meet
with his probation officer at his reported residence at an appointed time. The
district court revoked Crayton’s supervised release and sentenced him to 60
months of imprisonment.
Crayton appeals his 60-month sentence, arguing that it was
unreasonable because it failed to account for his battle with drug addiction and
because the district court imposed the sentence to run consecutively with the
sentence imposed for his marijuana distribution conviction. As Crayton did
not object in the district court to the reasonableness of his sentence, we review
for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th
Cir. 2009). Under that standard, he must show a clear or obvious error that
affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009). This court has discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id.
Crayton fails to make the required showing. In the district court, he
pleaded true to violating the conditions of his release. Moreover, Crayton’s 60month sentence falls within the statutory maximum.
See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). The district court’s comments at the revocation hearing about
Crayton’s criminal history and the court’s explicit reliance on the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors reflect that it considered the appropriate factors in fashioning
a revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir.
2011). Finally, as to the consecutive nature of the sentence, the Sentencing
Guidelines provide that a revocation sentence shall run consecutively to any
2
Case: 14-10293
Document: 00512970405
Page: 3
Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-10293
other sentence, even if both arose out of the same conduct, because a revocation
sentence punishes a breach of trust rather than the criminal conduct.
U.S.S.G., Chap. 7, Pt. A, & 3(b); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4).
AFFIRMED.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?