United States v. Derek Parra

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Derek Parra

669 F. App'x 261

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 11, 2016

Docket15-41595 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 261 (United States v. Derek Parra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Derek Parra, 669 F. App'x 261 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Derek Parra appeals the 48-month prison sentence that the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. The sentence was above the advisory range of eight to 14 months.

Parra argues that the evidence that he committed assault while on supervised release was inconclusive and that the district court should have given less weight to that allegation. However, Parra fails to show that the district court’s factual findings with respect to his revocation sentencing *262 were not plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).

We review his remaining claims for plain error as he did not object to the sentence as procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326-27, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Although Parra argues that the district court imposed the revocation sentence as punishment for his assault offense, cf. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843-44 (5th Cir. 2011), the court properly considered the nature of Parra’s violations, along with Parra’s history of violence against women and children, as relevant to the proper statutory factors On which it relied, including deterrence and incapacitation,, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). The court considered the relevant Guideline policy statement in sentencing Parra, see United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994), and adequately explained the chosen sentence, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The district court’s reasons justified the 48-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Parra fails to show error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. determined that this opinion should not be R. 47.5.4. published and is not precedent except under

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Derek Parra appeals the 48-month prison sentence that the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. The sentence was above the advisory range of eight to 14 months.

Parra argues that the evidence that he committed assault while on supervised release was inconclusive and that the district court should have given less weight to that allegation. However, Parra fails to show that the district court’s factual findings with respect to his revocation sentencing *262 were not plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 790 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).

We review his remaining claims for plain error as he did not object to the sentence as procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326-27, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Although Parra argues that the district court imposed the revocation sentence as punishment for his assault offense, cf. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843-44 (5th Cir. 2011), the court properly considered the nature of Parra’s violations, along with Parra’s history of violence against women and children, as relevant to the proper statutory factors On which it relied, including deterrence and incapacitation,, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). The court considered the relevant Guideline policy statement in sentencing Parra, see United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994), and adequately explained the chosen sentence, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The district court’s reasons justified the 48-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Parra fails to show error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. determined that this opinion should not be R. 47.5.4. published and is not precedent except under

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-derek-parra-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack