United States v. Lafleur ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60077 Document: 00516821578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60077
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 14, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Corey Joseph Lafleur,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:19-CR-35-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Corey Joseph Lafleur appeals his sentence, which is within the policy
guidelines range, imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.
Lafleur argues that the nature and circumstances of his violations did not
support his seven-month sentence, that the district court failed to give
adequate weight to his employment history or consider that he only was
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60077 Document: 00516821578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 23-60077
required to be at Dismas Charities until he obtained a suitable place to live,
and that his sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the relevant
sentencing goals.
We review a preserved challenge to a revocation sentence under the
“plainly unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843
(5th Cir. 2011). We first consider whether the sentence was substantively
unreasonable, reviewing for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Warren,
720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). A revocation sentence within the policy
guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Badgett,
957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2020). The sentence will be vacated “only if the
identified error is obvious under existing law.” United States v. Sanchez, 900
F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The record shows that, in making its sentencing decision, the district
court properly made “an individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Despite Lafleur’s
arguments to the contrary, the record shows that the district court listened
to and considered the nature and circumstances of his violations as well as his
personal characteristics. Lafleur has not demonstrated any clear error of
judgment in the district court’s balancing of the relevant sentencing factors.
See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332; see also United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161,
167 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Lafleur has failed to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness of his seven-month revocation sentence. Miller, 634 F.3d
at 843; see also Badgett, 957 F.3d at 541.
AFFIRMED.
2