UNITED STATES v. CASTELAN GRANADOS (2018)

Ezequiel Castelan-Granados appeals following the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. First, he argues that the district court exceeded its authority by reimposing the outstanding balance of the mandatory $100 special assessment, and he requests that the revocation order be amended to delete the reimposition of the assessment. However, the record shows that the assessment has been paid. Accordingly, his challenge to the reimposition of the special assessment is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Next, Castelan-Granados argues that the lifetime term of supervised release is improper because it is grounded in the district court’s desire to impose a just punishment. Because this claim was not presented to the district court, it is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009).

There is no clear or obvious error, as review of the hearing transcript does not clearly show that the district court’s choice of a lifetime term of supervised release was driven by the desire to impose just punishment. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). Instead, this review supports a conclusion that the sentence was chosen based on the district court’s opinion that it was warranted by Castelan-Granados’s history and characteristics, and the need for deterrence. These are proper bases for a revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). His sentence is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.