United States v. Monsivais

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-10666
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10666 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED May 27, 2025 No. 24-10666 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christian Monsivais,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-14-1 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Christian Monsivais appeals his 21-month sentence of imprisonment imposed on revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his underlying conviction is now

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10666 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2025

No. 24-10666

unconstitutional in light of United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2023).1 We review Monsivais’s revocation sentence to determine if it is “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018). We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A defendant may not use a revocation appeal to challenge the underlying criminal conviction and sentence. United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009). While Monsivais relies on the narrow exception to that rule set out in Willis, his reliance is misplaced given the marked factual differences between the two cases. Id. (limiting the holding’s precedential value “to cases presenting indistinguishable facts in all material respects”). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

_____________________ 1 Daniels was subsequently vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 580 (2024). United States v. Daniels, 144 S. Ct. 2707 (2024). On remand, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was “unconstitutional as applied to Daniels unless the government can show that Daniels was disarmed for reasons above and beyond habitual or occasional marihuana use.” United States v. Daniels, 124 F.4th 967, 975 (5th Cir. 2025).