USA v. Rocha, No. 04-10955 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-10955 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HENRI ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-1-ALL-R -------------------Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Henri Rocha pleaded guilty in the Western District of Texas to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 10 months in prison and two years of supervised release. His supervised release term commenced in August 2003 but was revoked in July 2004. The district court imposed a revocation sentence of 24 months. Rocha now appeals, contending that the sentence is unlawful. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 04-10955 -2Rocha s 24-month sentence is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release from a Class D felony. § 3583(e)(3). See 18 U.S.C. The Government contends that Rocha s underlying marijuana offense was a Class D felony, but Rocha argues, based on his 10-month underlying sentence, that it was a Class A misdemeanor, or, at most, a Class E felony. There is nothing properly in the record from which we may determine the classification of Rocha s offense, which is necessary to determine the maximum authorized revocation sentence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(e). See The Government has supplemented the record with the Statement of Reasons from Rocha s underlying judgment, but this document does not indicate the statutory maximum sentence for Rocha s offense from which the classification under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) may be inferred. We note also that the district court did not discuss at the revocation sentencing the classification of Rocha s underlying offense or the suggested sentencing guideline range. Given the lack of clarity in the record, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of making findings as to Rocha s offense of conviction, i.e. what provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) supported the conviction, the statutory maximum sentence, and the classification of the underlying offense. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(e)(2)(C). This court retains jurisdiction No. 04-10955 -3of the appeal during the pendency of the limited remand. See Wheeler v. City of Columbus, 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982). LIMITED REMAND.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
