United States v. Holt ( 2022 )

Case: 21-51176 Document: 00516422015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 5, 2022
No. 21-51176
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Royshena Holt,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-86-2
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Royshena Holt pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court sentenced her to 13
months in prison, with credit for time served, and three years of supervised
release. She was released to supervised release after completing her prison
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-51176 Document: 00516422015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 21-51176
term, but her supervised release was revoked after she violated the conditions
of her supervision. The district court imposed an 18-month sentence.
On appeal, Holt contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke her supervised release and impose sentence. We review her claim de
novo. See United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 640 F.3d 129, 131 (5th Cir. 2011).
According to Holt, the district court did not have jurisdiction because
the underlying criminal judgment was void. She maintains that the amended
judgment in the criminal case, which specified the terms under which she had
to report to prison, was invalid because the district court lacked the authority
to modify her sentence after its imposition. She also asserts that, but for the
void amended judgment, she would not have been convicted and sentenced
for failure to surrender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a), on account of her
noncompliance with the terms of the amended judgment. Holt alleges that
the time that she served for that offense wrongly was used to extend the start
date for her term of supervised release.
Her argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction is premised on
a challenge to the legality of the amended judgment. However, the district
court in a revocation case is effectively bound by the underlying judgment,
regardless of its validity, and a defendant may not use a revocation appeal to
challenge the underlying criminal conviction and sentence. See United States
v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d
114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005). To the extent that Holt seeks to use this revocation
appeal to challenge her conviction and sentence for failure to surrender—a
separate criminal judgment from the one underlying this appeal—her claims
are more attenuated and inapposite. Any concerns that she has regarding the
underlying judgment or her conviction and sentence for failure to surrender
are more appropriate in an appeal from the disputed judgment or a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 721 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
Case: 21-51176 Document: 00516422015 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 21-51176
The record supports that the district court otherwise had jurisdiction.
The revocation proceeding was initiated and completed within three years of
Holt’s release from custody. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 57
(2000); United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 (5th Cir. 2005); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i). Although Holt suggests that her supervised
release should have begun when she was arrested for the underlying criminal
offense, her supervised release began following her prison term once she was
released to the supervision of a probation officer. See § 3624(e); Johnson, 529
U.S. at 57; United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 640 F.3d 129, 130, 134 (5th Cir.
2011). Because she was convicted of the underlying offense and was granted
credit for time served, her supervised release could not have begun while she
was in pretrial detention for the offense. See Mont v. United States, 139 S. Ct.
1826, 1832 (2019); United States v. Molina-Gazca, 571 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir.
2009). Her term of supervised release otherwise was tolled while she was in
prison, including, inter alia, during her pretrial detention and imprisonment
for her failure-to-surrender conviction. See § 3624(e); Johnson, 529 U.S. at
57; Molina-Gazca, 571 F.3d at 472-74; Jackson, 426 F.3d at 304. Her claim
that her imprisonment for her failure-to-surrender conviction was invalid and
could not toll her supervised release under Mont is unavailing. See Mont, 139
S. Ct. at 1834; see also Willis, 563 F.3d at 170; Hinson, 429 F.3d at 116.
Given the foregoing, Holt has not shown that the district court lacked
the authority to conduct the revocation hearing and impose sentence. Thus,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3