United States v. Woods

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50314
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

BRIANE NICOLE WOODS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:07-CR-61-1

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Briane Nicole Woods challenges her statutory-maximum sentence of 36-
months’ imprisonment, imposed upon revocation of her term of supervised
release. The supervised release was part of her sentence imposed following
her conviction in 2007 for, inter alia, aiding and abetting possession with intent
to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, a Class B felony in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). She contends the sentence is plainly

*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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
FILED
February 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50314 Document: 00515306104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2020

No. 19-50314
2
unreasonable because the district court: failed to consider that she had
corrected her drug problem; erroneously found she had repeatedly violated the
conditions of her supervised release; impermissibly punished her, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), for having a drug problem; gave improper weight to
the need to deter her; and should have sentenced her at the low end of the
suggested Sentencing Guidelines policy-statement range, followed by
treatment.
A revocation sentence is reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable”
standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Under
that standard, we first assess “whether the district court committed a
significant procedural error”. United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th
Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 139 S.
Ct. 1363 (2019). The district court commits significant procedural error with
respect to a revocation sentence if it “fail[s] to consider the [relevant] § 3553(a)
[sentencing] factors, select[s] a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
fail[s] to adequately explain the chosen sentence”. United States v. Warren,
720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Factual findings are
reviewed for “clear error” and will not be disturbed unless “[im]plausible in
[the] light of the record taken as a whole”. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38
F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
“If there is no procedural error, [our] court considers the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard,
examining the totality of the circumstances.” Fuentes, 906 F.3d at 325
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable where the district court did “not account for a
factor that should have received significant weight”, the court gave “significant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor”, or the sentence “represents a clear
Case: 19-50314 Document: 00515306104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2020

No. 19-50314
3
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors”. Warren, 720 F.3d at
332 (citation omitted).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the court may revoke a term of
supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment “after considering the
factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4),
(a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7)”. The court may not, however, consider 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A): “the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment
for the offense”. United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1016–17 (5th Cir.
2015) (citations omitted). Of particular importance in this instance, upon
revocation of supervised release, “[t]he district court may impose any sentence
that falls within the appropriate statutory maximum term of imprisonment
allowed for the revocation sentence”. United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425,
427 (5th Cir. 2008).
At sentencing, the district court considered Woods’ assertion that she
had taken measures to address her cocaine use, but determined a sentence of
36-months’ imprisonment was appropriate, based on the futility of previous
treatment and Woods’ repeated failure to comply with the conditions of her
supervised release. These considerations align with proper § 3553(a) factors
dealing with personal history, the need for deterrence, and the most effective
manner of correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(2)(D). Further, the court’s finding that Woods repeatedly violated the
conditions of her supervised release is plausible in the light of the record as a
whole. See Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d at 790 & n.3.
Woods’ contention that the court impermissibly considered
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)’s factors is unfounded. As discussed above, the court properly
Case: 19-50314 Document: 00515306104 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2020

No. 19-50314
4
focused on Woods’ prior failure to comply with conditions of supervised release
and the exhibited failure of court-imposed treatment.
Regarding Woods’ claiming she should have been sentenced at the low
end of the advisory-Guidelines policy-statement range, although her sentence
exceeded the range of eight to 14-months’ imprisonment, it was within the
statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing three-year
maximum for Class B felony offense). Our court has “routinely affirmed
revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the sentence
equals the statutory maximum”. Warren, 720 F.3d at 332 (citation omitted);
see also United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 89, 93–94 (5th Cir. 1994)
(concluding sentence of 36-months’ imprisonment was not plainly
unreasonable where policy-statement range was six-12-months’
imprisonment).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-50314 Document: 00515306104 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2020