USA v. Corey Holmes, No. 11-11073 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-11073 Summary Calendar July 23, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. COREY HOLMES, also known as Blue, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-89-2 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Corey Holmes appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release on the basis, inter alia, that he possessed a controlled substance and failed to submit to drug testing. The district court imposed a 24month sentence to serve as punishment and deterrence as well as protection of the public from further criminal activity. Holmes contends that the court erred in light of United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). We review for plain error because Holmes failed to preserve * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2012 No. 11-11073 the purported Miller error in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). In Miller, we held that it is improper for a district court to rely on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, which include punishment, for the modification or revocation of a term of supervised release because Congress deliberately omitted that subsection from the first clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 634 F.3d at 844. Unlike the revocation under § 3583(e) at issue in Miller, the revocation of Holmes s term of supervised release was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Because § 3583(g) does not expressly invoke the § 3553(a) factors or the limits imposed by the first clause of § 3583(e), we find no clear or obvious error under Miller. See United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ibanez, 454 F. App x 328, 330 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1981 (2012). The judgment of the district court 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.
