Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Reshon Lamont Scott was subject to supervised release following an earlier conviction. When his supervised release was revoked, the district court imposed a 60-month sentence. Scott appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the district court impermissibly considered retributive factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when fashioning his revocation sentence.
On appeal, Scott contended that the district court erred by considering specific sentencing factors during the revocation process. However, Scott had not objected to this issue at the district court level, meaning the appellate review would be limited to the plain error standard rather than de novo review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Scott’s 60-month revocation sentence. The court held that Scott had waived his appellate challenge through inadequate briefing. Although Scott acknowledged that plain error review applied, he failed to provide a proper plain error analysis or address all four prongs of the plain error standard established in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009).
The court noted that Scott’s counsel neither objected below nor offered comprehensive briefing in support of the position on appeal. Scott neither contended nor showed that the district court clearly or obviously erred by considering the factors in § 3553(a)(2)(A), and failed to address the third and fourth prongs of plain error review. This failure to satisfy the plain error standard meant Scott did not preserve the issue for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants who fail to object at the district court level bear a heightened burden on appeal under the plain error standard, requiring proof of all four Puckett prongs
- Inadequate appellate briefing—particularly failure to address all elements of plain error analysis—constitutes waiver of an issue
- Appellate courts expect counsel to provide comprehensive briefing; conclusory assertions without analysis will not preserve issues for appeal
- Plain error review is not a substitute for proper preservation and briefing; failure to brief dooms appellate claims
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces critical appellate procedure requirements that directly impact criminal defendants’ ability to challenge sentences. Scott’s case illustrates how procedural missteps—specifically, failing to preserve objections and provide adequate appellate briefing—can result in complete forfeiture of otherwise colorable sentencing arguments. For practitioners, the decision underscores that even when a defendant believes plain error review applies, counsel must still undertake rigorous plain error analysis addressing all four prongs, not merely assert error exists.
The decision serves as a cautionary tale about appellate representation: the plain error standard is not a safety net that catches all errors, but rather a narrow avenue of review that demands thorough briefing and demonstration that the error was obvious and affected substantial rights. Counsel representing defendants in supervised release revocation proceedings should preserve any sentencing objections at the district court level and prepare comprehensive appellate briefs that address the full scope of appellate review standards.