Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30520/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Jordan Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30520

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL JORDAN JOHNSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:03-CR-48-1

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Jordan Johnson appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following

the revocation of his supervised release for committing a state crime. Johnson

argues that his sentence, which was above the recommended range, is

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Johnson contends that the district

court failed to articulate reasons to support a sentence above the guidelines

range. He further argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to

accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-30520 Document: 00511048837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
No. 09-30520

2

Because Johnson did not object to the court’s failure to articulate reasons,

review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423,

1429 (2009). To show plain error, Johnson must show a forfeited error that is

clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. at 1429. If

Johnson makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error

but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings. Id. 

The district court provided adequate reasons for the imposition of

Johnson’s sentence. The court specifically cited the sentencing factors of 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and stated that it had considered the advisory range of 4-10

months. However, the court did not believe that a sentence within the

recommended range was sufficient considering the circumstances of the case.

The court reflected on Johnson’s criminal history, the characteristics of Johnson,

and the need to promote deterrence. The court also noted that the conduct

involved in the state offense was similar to the conduct underlying his federal

conviction. The court’s statement is sufficient and does not constitute plain

error. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429; United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836

(5th Cir. 1996). 

Johnson’s sentence, while in excess of the 4-10 month range indicated by

the policy statements of Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, was within the

36-month statutory maximum term of imprisonment the district court could

have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3). Johnson’s sentence

is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson,

429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 09-30520 Document: 00511048837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010