Background
Rodrick Lavallais appealed the sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. He argued that the court improperly relied on bare allegations of new law violations, including an arrest in Houston and an Iowa arrest warrant.
Lavallais also challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court relied on an improper factor by referring to his failure to follow an earlier instruction to work 40 hours per week and earn a regular paycheck.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Lavallais had not objected in the district court to its consideration of the arrest and warrant, the court reviewed that issue for plain error and held that he had not shown error in the district court’s comments about those matters.
Applying plain-error review to the substantive-reasonableness claim as well, the court found no clear or obvious error. It concluded that the district court permissibly referred to its prior employment instruction to highlight Lavallais’s continued failure to pay the balance of his fine, an admitted supervised-release violation and a permissible sentencing consideration.
Key Takeaways
- Unpreserved objections to matters considered at a revocation sentencing are reviewed for plain error.
- Lavallais failed to establish that the district court erred by commenting on his Houston arrest or Iowa arrest warrant.
- The district court could consider his continued failure to pay his fine and refer to its earlier instruction that he maintain full-time work and regular income.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of overturning a supervised-release revocation sentence when the defendant did not preserve the asserted errors. It also confirms that a court may discuss employment expectations when they bear on an admitted failure to satisfy a financial obligation imposed as part of the sentence.