Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50765/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elisa Morin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50765

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELISA MORIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-938-3

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elisa Morin appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the 

revocation of her supervised release. She contends that the district court’s 

failure to provide adequate reasons for the sentence, which is below the 

statutory maximum of 24 months but above the policy statement range of four 

to 10 months of imprisonment, renders the sentence plainly unreasonable.

 

* 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

May 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50765 Document: 00513495732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2016
No. 15-50765

2

Because Morin did not object to the revocation sentence after it was 

imposed, we review her arguments for plain error. United States v. Warren, 

720 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2013). To prevail under the plain error standard, 

Morin must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Warren, 720 F.3d at 327. She also 

must demonstrate that any error affected her substantial rights, meaning that 

“the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Warren, 720 

F.3d at 327 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If these 

requirements are met, this court has the discretion to correct the error, but 

“only if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the 

judicial proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Because the district court provided a sufficiently detailed explanation for the 

sentence it imposed, it did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in stating its 

reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261-62 

(5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50765 Document: 00513495732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2016