United States v. Buggs

Case: 26-60081 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 26-60081 FILED Summary Calendar August 4, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Jasper Buggs,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:25-CR-1-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Richman, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Defendant-Appellant Jasper Buggs appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after the revocation of his term of supervised release. He argues that the district court improperly considered the need to promote respect for the law and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Case: 26-60081 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2026

No. 26-60081

At the revocation hearing, the district court did not mention any need to promote respect for the law, and the record does not otherwise show that an impermissible factor was a dominant consideration in the court’s sentencing decision. See United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the district court did not commit any plain error in this regard. See id.; United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 2020). In challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, Buggs contends that the district court failed to account for the mitigating factors surrounding his violations and that it gave too much weight to his criminal history. The record reflects that the district court considered Buggs’s arguments in mitigation but found that the 24-month sentence was needed “to protect the public.” Further, the district court was permitted to consider Buggs’s history and characteristics. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1). Buggs has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence. See Cano, 981 F.3d at 425.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.