USA v. Douglas Yarbrough, No. 19-50424 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-50424 Document: 00515323238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-50424 Summary Calendar February 27, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DOUGLAS HUBBARD YARBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09-CR-328-1 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Douglas Hubbard Yarbrough appeals the 36-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release. He contends that the above-guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Generally, we review revocation sentences under the plainly unreasonable standard, examining first for procedural error and then for 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-50424 Document: 00515323238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 No. 19-50424 substantive reasonableness. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). However, where a district court was not put on notice of the arguments presented on appeal pertaining to a revocation sentence, plain error review applies. United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the plain error standard, Yarbrough must show (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious (3) and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1363 (2019). “If he makes that showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The instant record reflects that the district court considered the properly calculated guidelines range, the statutory maximum sentence available, and Yarbrough’s unwillingness to comply with the terms of his supervision. The record reflects that it implicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when it selected Yarbrough’s sentence. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 499. The record of the sentencing proceeding allows us to conduct a meaningful appellate review, and there is no suggestion in the record that a more thorough explanation would have resulted in a lower sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262-64 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that the district court considered an improper factor or would impose a lighter sentence on remand. See id. at 264–65. 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.
