Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rodrick Lavallais appealed the sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. He argued that the court improperly relied on bare allegations of new criminal conduct when it referred to his arrest in Houston and an Iowa arrest warrant.
Lavallais also challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court relied on an improper factor—his failure to follow an earlier instruction to work 40 hours per week and earn a regular paycheck. Because he had not raised either objection in the district court, the Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that Lavallais had not shown that the district court plainly erred by commenting on his Houston arrest or the Iowa arrest warrant when imposing the revocation sentence.
The court also found no clear or obvious error in the district court’s reference to its earlier employment instruction. In context, the district court used that instruction to highlight Lavallais’s continued failure to pay the remaining balance of his fine—an admitted supervised-release violation and a permissible sentencing consideration.
Key Takeaways
- Unpreserved challenges to a supervised-release revocation sentence are reviewed for plain error.
- Lavallais failed to establish plain error based on the district court’s references to his Houston arrest and Iowa arrest warrant.
- The district court permissibly considered Lavallais’s admitted failure to pay the balance of his fine and referenced its prior employment instruction in that context.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of overturning a revocation sentence when the defendant did not preserve the alleged errors below. Under plain-error review, the appellant must identify an error that is clear or obvious, and Lavallais did not meet that threshold.
It also confirms that a sentencing court may discuss a defendant’s failure to follow employment-related instructions when that discussion bears on an admitted and permissible consideration, such as continued nonpayment of a fine.