Case: 17-30862 Document: 00514596844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-30862 FILED
Summary Calendar August 13, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
STEVEN CARTER,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:09-CR-90-1
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Steven Carter appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of
his supervised release. He argues that the 24-month sentence is an upward
variance from the guidelines range and plainly unreasonable, contending that
the district court relied upon unsubstantiated information, failed to give
adequate reasons for the sentence, and failed to appropriately weigh
mitigating factors.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-30862 Document: 00514596844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2018
No. 17-30862
As Carter did not raise his arguments in the district court, review is for
plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Carter’s
two-year sentence was authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1);
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a); United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783,
792 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court sufficiently articulated its reasons for
imposing the statutory maximum sentence, as the district court’s reasons
indicate that it had considered, inter alia, Carter’s personal history and
circumstances, Carter’s need for drug rehabilitation, and the need for the
sentence to deter criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); United States v.
Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court also considered the policy statements of the
Guidelines. See § 3553(e). Although the Government now disputes the district
court’s calculation of the guidelines range of imprisonment, the district court’s
decision to impose the statutory maximum sentence was not plain error.
See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332-33
(5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 1992). While the district
court observed that Carter was “scaring people” and that “people are afraid” of
him, these factors were not identified by the district court as part of its
rationale for imposing the sentence. See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d
1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). Finally, Carter’s assertion that the district court
failed to adequately consider mitigating factors does not demonstrate that the
district court committed plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United
States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2