U.S. v. Willis

24 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Holt

    No. 21-51176 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2022)

    See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005). To the extent that Holt seeks to use this revocation appeal to challenge her conviction and sentence for failure to surrender -a separate criminal judgment from the one underlying this appeal-her claims are more attenuated and inapposite.

  2. United States v. Fuentes

    906 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 27 times
    Outlining standard

    Since his actual sentence of five years would not have been permissible without the alleged constitutional defect, and because he has already served nearly 13 years in prison (one year longer than the 12-year aggregate term that he should have been sentenced to originally), he contends that his revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable.In support of that view, he relies on this court’s holding in United States v. Willis , 563 F.3d 168, 169–70 (5th Cir. 2009). Willis was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment and two terms of supervised release, all to run concurrently.

  3. United States v. Wilford

    No. 24-5059 (10th Cir. Nov. 14, 2024)

    .See also United States v. Nevarez-Barela, 767 Fed.Appx. 667, 669-70 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) ("[A] direct appeal from the revocation of his supervised release is not the proper place to bring . . . claims" collaterally attacking an underlying conviction.); United States v. Echols, 33 Fed.Appx. 376, 378 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (revocation of supervised release proceedings "are not the proper context in which to explore any inadequacies in [the defendant's] original conviction" and the defendant "must seek relief . . . in collateral proceedings under § 2255"); United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2010) ("It is by now well-established that a defendant may not use the appeal of a revocation of supervised release to challenge an underlying conviction or original sentence."); United States v. Warren, 335 F.3d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2003) ("We join other circuits in holding that the validity of an underlying conviction or sentence may not be collaterally attacked in a supervised release revocation proceeding and may be challenged only on direct appeal or through a habeas corpus proceeding."). ! III. CONCLUSION

  4. United States v. Roberts

    No. 23-50513 (5th Cir. May. 13, 2024)

    However, the district court in a revocation proceeding is effectively bound by the underlying judgment, regardless of its validity, and a defendant may not use a revocation appeal to challenge an underlying criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 2005).

  5. United States v. Wright

    No. 21-11059 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022)

    See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009). However, the district court has discretion to consider the error in the original judgment when imposing the revocation sentence.

  6. United States v. Granado

    No. 21-50839 (5th Cir. Jun. 30, 2022)

    Granado asserts that the sentences are multiplicitous. He invokes United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 160-70 (5th Cir. 2009). The holding in Willis is limited to its material facts, which differ from those presented by the instant case.

  7. United States v. Renteria

    No. 21-50713 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2022)

    United States v. Fuentes, 906 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2018). Renteria's reliance on United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2009), is misplaced. In Willis, the defendant faced two revocation sentences for what should have been one underlying conviction.

  8. United States v. Rushing

    No. 16-4007 (4th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)

    Assuming without deciding that this is correct and that the reimbursement order would not stand after Moore, Rushing fails to identify any legal authority for the proposition that the district court could alter the reimbursement order — which was part of the original criminal judgment — in the context of adjudicating a supervised release revocation petition. Cf. United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009) ("It is by now well-established that a defendant may not use the appeal of a revocation of supervised release to challenge an underlying conviction or original sentence."); United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that "[a] district judge may still correct a final judgment in a criminal case to reflect the sentence he actually imposed but he cannot change the sentence he did impose even if the sentence was erroneous"). We thus reject Rushing's first assignment of error.

  9. United States v. Lenoir

    616 F. App'x 759 (5th Cir. 2015)

    A defendant may not challenge his underlying conviction or original sentence on appeal from the revocation of his supervised release. See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009). Lenoir has, however, identified errors in the revocation judgment which require correction.

  10. United States v. Goodman

    No. 14-10589 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014)

    Additionally, regarding Goodman's challenge to his revocation sentence based on a miscalculated criminal-history score for his sentence for stolen mail, "a defendant may not use the appeal of a revocation of supervised release to challenge an underlying conviction or original sentence". United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.