Case: 20-10461 Document: 00515707929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 14, 2021
No. 20-10461 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ilmane Charone Campas Strong,
Defendant—Appellant,
consolidated with
_____________
No. 20-10462
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ilmane Charone Strong,
Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 20-10461 Document: 00515707929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2021
No. 20-10461
c/w No. 20-10462
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-325-1
USDC No. 4:10-CR-126-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ilmane Charone Strong appeals his conviction and sentence for
possessing a firearm after felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Strong also appeals his sentence following the revocation of his
supervised release for a prior bank robbery conviction. For the reasons that
follow, we AFFIRM.
Strong contends that the district court plainly erred in accepting his
guilty plea to possessing a firearm after felony conviction because the statute
of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is facially unconstitutional. He also argues
that the district court violated his right to a jury trial by applying the
mandatory revocation provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). As Strong readily
admits, these claims are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United
States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 2020), as revised (Aug. 14,
2020); United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Strong
brings these claims only to preserve them for further review.
In addition, Strong argues that his above-policy-statement-range
revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable. He asserts that the
district court gave little justification for its selected sentence and did not
address the mitigating factors he presented.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
2
Case: 20-10461 Document: 00515707929 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2021
No. 20-10461
c/w No. 20-10462
A revocation sentence is reviewed to determine whether it is “plainly
unreasonable.” United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). This
standard is “more deferential” than the general standard for reviewing the
reasonableness of criminal sentences. Id. (cleaned up). A revocation sentence
is substantively unreasonable where the district court did not account for a
sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error in
judgment when balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Warren,
720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).
Although Strong complains that the district court provided
insufficient justification for imposing its chosen sentence and did not address
mitigating factors, he does not show that the district court failed to account
for a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight. He
likewise failed to show that the district court gave significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor. Strong also does not indicate how the district
court made a clear error in judgment when balancing the sentencing factors.
See Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. And, he certainly does not show how any such
error was obvious under existing law. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.
Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3