United States v. Daigle

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30675
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FARICE DAIGLE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:92-CR-60032-3-TLM
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Farice Daigle, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following
the district court’s revocation of his term of supervised
release. Daigle was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 36
months, to be followed by a 24-month term of supervised release.
Daigle argues that he was denied due process during the
revocation hearing because, despite his objections, the district
court relied on evidence of his anger management problem.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-30675
-2-
Daigle had no due process right to notice of the evidence
that the district court might rely on to exceed the recommended
guidelines range and impose the statutory maximum sentence.
Daigle received sufficient notice that he faced a 36-month
sentence by virtue of the statute under which he had been
convicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court did
not deprive Daigle of due process in considering evidence that
was not disclosed to him prior to the hearing.
Daigle argues that the sentence imposed, which was the
statutory maximum, was plainly unreasonable in light of his
relatively minor violations of the conditions of his supervised
release. He argues that the district court failed to give proper
consideration to the recommended guideline range and that the
district court could have required him to receive anger
management counseling as a condition of supervised release. He
also argues that the sentence is unreasonable. Daigle concedes
that he failed to raise these issues in the district court and
that these issues are subject to plain error review. United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc).
The district court gave consideration to the recommended
guideline sentence, but determined that it was not sufficient in
light of Daigle’s behavior during the period of supervised
release. The district court was not bound by the recommended
guidelines. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 92-93 (5th

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-30675
-3-
Cir. 1994). The district court properly considered Daigle’s need
for counseling in determining his sentence. United States v.
Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1097 (5th Cir. 1994). Daigle received
the statutory maximum sentence, which was not error in light of
the evidence presented at the revocation hearing. The district
court did not plainly err in imposing that sentence. The
sentence is AFFIRMED.
The written judgment, however, erroneously reflects that the
district court found that Daigle had violated all conditions of
supervised release as alleged in the revocation petition. The
case is REMANDED to the district court to amend the written
judgment to conform to the oral findings made by the district
court at the conclusion of the revocation hearing. See United
States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001).
Daigle’s motion to supplement the record to show that he had
received a Certificate of Achievement for successfully completing
an Anger Management Program is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO AMEND THE WRITTEN JUDGMENT.

-- 3 of 3 --