United States v. Yeager
This text of United States v. Yeager (United States v. Yeager) 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.
Opinion
Case: 23-30213 Document: 00516980642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 23-30213 FILED Summary Calendar November 28, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Randolph Yeager, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:06-CR-60056-1 ______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * David Randolph Yeager, Jr., pleaded true to a violation of a supervised release condition following a state conviction on child pornography charges. The district court sentenced him to 36 months in prison, to be served consecutively to the state sentence, and imposed a lifetime term of supervised release.
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30213 Document: 00516980642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2023
No. 23-30213
Yeager challenges the substantive reasonableness of his revocation sentence. This court reviews “a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release under the plainly unreasonable standard of review.” United States v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016). Consecutive sentencing is the express policy of the Sentencing Guidelines in the revocation context. United States v. Flores, 862 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2017); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4). Further, the length of the sentence and the life term of supervised release were supported by the record, and we have repeatedly affirmed statutory maximum sentences above the revocation policy range. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Thus, Yeager has not shown that the sentence is plainly unreasonable. AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Yeager, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-yeager-ca5-2023.