Case: 15-50146 Document: 00513245371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-50146
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 23, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PAT PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:97-CR-43-1
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Pat Patterson appeals the 24-month term of imprisonment imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Since Patterson did not object to his sentence, review is for plain error.
See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). The 24-month
revocation sentence is above the maximum Guidelines sentence of 13 months
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-50146 Document: 00513245371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
No. 15-50146
but below the statutory maximum sentence of 44 months. “We have routinely
affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the
sentence equals the statutory maximum.” Id. at 332 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). This case does not warrant a different result. See id. at
333. The district court took Patterson’s drug addiction into account by
recommending that he receive treatment while incarcerated, but it placed more
weight on his pattern of failing to comply with his conditions of supervised
release. This was the third time Patterson had violated the condition of
supervised release. To the extent that Patterson argues that this amounted to
a consideration of prohibited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and assuming
arguendo that this argument is not waived by virtue of inadequate briefing,
any error was not plain. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009);
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Indeed, Patterson does not
even identify which improper factor the district allegedly considered in
deciding this sentence. Patterson thus has failed to show that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable, much less plainly unreasonable. See United
States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2