Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60906/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Robert Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60906

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN ROBERT ANDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:06-CR-2-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Robert Anderson appeals from the statutory maximum sentence 

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the 

district court’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We 

affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Anderson argues that the district court 

procedurally erred in failing to provide a specific explanation for its above-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2016
No. 15-60906

2

guidelines sentence. Reviewing his argument for plain error only, see United 

States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009), we hold that the record 

discloses no clear or obvious error on the part of the district court in this regard. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Anderson also argues that the statutory maximum sentence was 

substantively unreasonable; however, the record reveals that Anderson did not 

comply with the conditions of his supervised release during the three terms 

that had already been imposed. He has pointed to nothing in the record to 

show that the district court’s sentence was an abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2016