USA v. Jermaine Medearis, No. 12-51056 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 10, 2013.
Download PDF
Case: 12-51056 Document: 00512466108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 12-51056 Summary Calendar FILED December 10, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JERMAINE TRAMON MEDEARIS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:07-CR-43-1 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jermaine Tramon Medearis appeals the 51-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Medearis argues that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a). He asserts that the sentence does not punish him for violating the court s trust, but rather for the new conviction underlying the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 12-51056 Document: 00512466108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2013 No. 12-51056 revocation of his supervised release. Medearis further argues that the sentence punishes him for problems that he has been trying to overcome, i.e, his depression and the ability to acclimate to life outside prison. We review preserved challenges to revocation sentences under a plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). However, because Medearis failed to object in the district court to the reasonableness of his revocation sentence, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, Medearis must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Medearis makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Medearis has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with regard to his revocation sentence. His 51-month sentence, which was at the bottom of the sentencing range recommended by the policy statements, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). To the extent that Medearis disagrees with the revocation sentence or disputes the weight that the district court afforded various sentencing factors, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
