Case: 21-60414 Document: 00516088371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 10, 2021
No. 21-60414
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Eric James,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:16-CR-34-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eric James appeals the 12-month prison term imposed following
revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by ordering a prison term
instead of long-term substance abuse treatment; that treatment would serve
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 21-60414 Document: 00516088371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
No. 21-60414
the interests of deterring future criminal conduct, protecting the public, and
providing correctional treatment; that a revocation sentence should not be
imposed to punish the conduct that constituted the supervised release
violation or to promote his rehabilitation; and that sentencing him to
mandatory drug treatment would not create any unwarranted sentencing
disparity. Even assuming (without deciding) that the argument was
preserved, we reject it.
“A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable if it (1) does not
account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Cano,
981 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
record belies any suggestion by James that the district court impermissibly
considered the need to punish him for his drug use or addiction or that the
court lengthened his prison term to promote his rehabilitation in violation of
Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). At best, his arguments amount
to a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the sentencing
factors. This does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness
afforded to his sentence, which was within his policy statement range. See
United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct.
827 (2020).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2