USA v. Whiteside, No. 22-50225 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50225 Document: 00516520579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50225 Summary Calendar FILED October 25, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Phillip Mechele Whiteside, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-760-1 Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The district court revoked Phillip Mechele Whiteside’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison, the maximum under the policy statement range, and 15 years of supervised release. On appeal, Whiteside argues his prison sentence is unreasonable because the district * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-50225 Document: 00516520579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 No. 22-50225 court lengthened it to promote his alcohol abuse treatment in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). “When a defendant properly preserves an objection for appeal, revocation sentences are reviewed under a plainly unreasonable standard.” United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted). If, however, the error was not preserved, we will review for plain error. See id. In this case, we need not decide the standard of review because Whiteside would not prevail under either standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). In Tapia, the Supreme Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) “precludes sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia, 564 U.S. at 332. The Supreme Court recognized, however, that sentencing courts are allowed to take an offender’s rehabilitation needs into account in imposing supervised release. Id. at 330; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)-(d). Contrary to Whiteside’s assertions, the district court did not lengthen his prison term to promote his alcohol abuse treatment. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 332. Instead, the district court explained that the prison sentence was based on Whiteside’s criminal history and his repeated failure to follow the conditions of his supervised release, which had resulted in four revocations with this latest revocation. Although the district court discussed Whiteside’s alcohol problems and his need for treatment, that commentary arose in the context of the district court’s imposition of the supervised release conditions, not the prison sentence. The district court’s 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.
