United States v. Jason Peek

Case: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 16-50645 FILED
Summary Calendar January 31, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

JASON BAILEY PEEK,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CR-16-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jason Bailey Peek appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation
of his supervised release subsequent to his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. Peek argues that the district court failed to provide
sufficient reasons for his 24-month sentence, which was outside of the
recommended guidelines range. He also argues that his sentence was
unreasonable because it “punished Peek not for violations of trust, but for the

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2017

No. 16-50645

uncharged criminal conduct implicit in his drug use,” which violated the
conditions of his supervised release.
We generally review revocation sentences under the “plainly
unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). In this case, however, because Peek did not object to the sentence in the
district court, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Jones,
484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Peek must show a
forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If he makes such a
showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See
id.
Contrary to Peek’s assertion, the district court gave adequate reasons for
his sentence, including the need for his sentence to afford adequate deterrence
to Peek to prevent further violations and to address the seriousness of his
conduct. The district court also noted that, despite having been given
assistance in complying with his supervised release conditions through drug
counseling, Peek nevertheless violated those conditions by continuing to use
drugs. Moreover, because Peek has not shown that the district court’s alleged
failure to provide more specific reasons for the sentence affected his substantial
rights or the public reputation of the judicial proceedings, he has failed to show
reversible plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 263-65
(5th Cir. 2009).
Because the 24-month sentence Peek received on revocation was not
greater than what is authorized by statute, it is “thus clearly legal.” United
States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, we have “routinely
upheld revocation sentences exceeding the recommended range, even where

2
Case: 16-50645 Document: 00513855992 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2017

No. 16-50645

the sentence is the statutory maximum.” United States v. Castaneda-
Estupinan, 503 F. App’x 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Jones, 484 F.3d
at 792 (holding statutory maximum revocation sentence not to be plain error).
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.