United States v. Randle ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60041 Document: 00516852142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
August 9, 2023
No. 23-60041
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Gregory L. Randle,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:21-CR-82-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Gregory L. Randle was convicted in 2021 for using an interstate
facility to promote prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). He
was released on supervision in March 2021. At revocation proceedings in
January 2023, Randle admitted he violated three conditions of release,
including committing other crimes. He challenges his within-Guidelines-
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60041 Document: 00516852142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2023
No. 23-60041
policy-statement-range revocation sentence of 12-months’ imprisonment
and 12-months’ supervised release as substantively unreasonable. (Randle
was convicted in the Southern District of California; jurisdiction for his
supervision was transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi.)
The “plainly unreasonable” standard governs our court’s review of a
revocation sentence. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). To prevail on a substantive-reasonableness challenge, defendant must
show the sentence was not only an abuse of discretion but also “the error was
obvious under existing law”. Id. “[T]hat the appellate court might
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court”. United States v. Warren,
720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
When imposing a revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the
district court must consider 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). See
§ 3583(e)(3). The court “may consider the § 3553(a) factors . . . , but is not
required to do so”, when imposing a sentence in connection with a
mandatory revocation under § 3583(g). United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607,
609 (5th Cir. 2015).
Randle asserts that § 3553(a) factors—including, the nonviolent
nature of the violations, his strong family ties, his pursuit of education, and
the length of the sentence for his new substantive offenses—mitigate against
a consecutive 12-month prison sentence. He also contends the court
lengthened his prison term to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia
v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 321, 334–35 (2011) (“[A] court may not impose
or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment
program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation”.).
2
Case: 23-60041 Document: 00516852142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2023
No. 23-60041
Regarding his claimed Tapia violation, although the district court
noted Randle had a history of using illegal drugs and ordered him to
participate in drug treatment as a condition of his supervised release, these
references to Randle’s drug use related both to his history and characteristics
and his potential threat to the public. These are permissible factors for the
district court to consider. E.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Saldana, 957 F.3d
576, 579–80 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining our court has found Tapia error
where court makes statements directly connecting need for prison sentence
with need for rehabilitation or treatment). Randle fails to show that the need
for rehabilitation was a “dominant factor” in his prison sentence. United
States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Further, even accepting Randle’s assertion that the court was
required to consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors for purposes of mitigation,
he does not show that the court: failed to account for a factor that should
have received significant weight; gave weight to an improper factor; or clearly
erred in balancing the sentencing factors. E.g., United States v. Cano, 981
F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020).
Randle additionally maintains his sentence was unreasonable because
the district court imposed the revocation sentence to run consecutively to the
sentence imposed for his new convictions. The imposition of consecutive
sentences is within the discretion of the court and is recommended by the
Guidelines policy statements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f),
p.s. & cmt. n.4 (providing that any prison term imposed upon revocation shall
be ordered to be served consecutively to any prison term defendant is
serving).
AFFIRMED.
3