United States v. Shamichael Bright, 678 F. App'x 257

Shamichael D. Bright appealed two consolidated sentences: a within-guidelines sentence for drug conspiracy and a revocation sentence after supervised-release violations; he challenges only the revocation sentence on appeal.
Bright argued the revocation sentence was unreasonable because the Guidelines already account for his violations and the district court failed to clearly articulate its § 3553(a) analysis.
The appeals court reviewed these unpreserved arguments for plain error.
Relevant precedent limits what a district court may consider in revocation sentencing: courts may not rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) (i.e., deterrence/rehabilitation) and must sanction the supervised-release violation rather than re-punish the underlying offense.
The district court’s sentencing remarks focused on sanctioning Bright’s supervised-release violations and did not cite or rely on prohibited § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Bright failed to show procedural or substantive error and affirmed the revocation sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural error in revocation sentencing	Bright: court failed to clearly state application of § 3553(a) and relied improperly on factors already accounted for by the Guidelines	Government: court focused on sanctioning the supervised-release violations and did not rely on prohibited factors	No procedural error — court did not cite or rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) and sentenced for the violation conduct
Impermissible consideration of underlying offense	Bright: revocation sentence effectively punished the underlying offense rather than the violation	Government: sentence targeted the nature and circumstances of the supervised-release violations	Not established — record shows court focused on violations, not re-punishment of initial offense
Substantive unreasonableness of sentence	Bright: sentence was unreasonable because Guidelines already account for his violations	Government: district court reasonably balanced § 3553(a) factors	No substantive error — appellant failed to show court ignored significant factors, gave improper weight, or clearly erred
Plain error standard applicability	Bright: challenges to revocation sentence despite lack of preservation	Government: plain error review applies to unpreserved claims	Plain error review applied; Bright did not meet burden to show plain error

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for plain error review of unpreserved sentencing challenges)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review of substantive reasonableness and district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (limits on factors permissible in revocation sentencing)
United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (distinction between punishment for the underlying offense and sanctioning supervised-release violations)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (appellate deference to district court’s balancing of § 3553(a) factors)