USA v. Roderick Hall


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10665 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 04/25/2017 for Appellant Roderick Deone Hall [16-10665]

Download PDF
Case: 16-10665 Document: 00513938653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10665 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 4, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RODERICK DEONE HALL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-16-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roderick Deone Hall appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred by failing to consider substance abuse treatment, in lieu of incarceration, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., comment. (n.6). He also argues that the district court erred by imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10665 Document: 00513938653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2017 No. 16-10665 which was lower than the statutory maximum but above the guidelines range of 4 to 10 months of imprisonment. As Hall did not raise these arguments in the district court, review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). In addition to failing drug testing, which would implicate the § 3583(d) exception, Hall violated the conditions of his supervised release by using and possessing cocaine and alcohol. Hall has failed to show any plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Harper, No. 01-10623, 2002 WL 494731, at *1-2 (5th Cir. March 15, 2002) (unpublished) (affirming revocation on similar grounds); see also United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009) (“It certainly is not plain error for the district court to rely on an unpublished opinion that is squarely on point.”). Additionally, the record reflects that the district court considered the relevant statutory factors in its determination that a guidelines range sentence would be inadequate. See § 3583(e) (setting forth appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the district court may consider in the revocation context). Moreover, Hall’s disagreement with the decision does not demonstrate an abuse of the district court’s wide sentencing discretion. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2

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?