Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10577/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10577-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Jean Cannon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10577

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONNA JEAN CANNON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-36-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donna Jean Cannon was convicted of possessing stolen mail in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. She was sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment and 

three years of supervised release. While on supervised release, Cannon tested 

positive for methamphetamine use; failed to attend scheduled substance abuse 

counseling, submit required urine samples, report to the probation office, and 

inform probation of a change in her residence; and impeded probation’s ability 

* 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

March 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10577 Document: 00512986177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-10577

to randomly check her residence for contraband. The district court revoked her 

supervised release and sentenced her to 18 months of imprisonment. 

Cannon appeals her 18-month sentence, arguing that it was 

unreasonable because it failed to account for her battle with drug addiction 

and her admission to having a drug problem. Because Cannon failed to alert 

the district court to the specific alleged error she raises on appeal, we review 

for plain error only. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 

2013). To show plain error, Cannon must show a forfeited error that is clear 

or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes such a showing, the court has the 

discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Cannon fails to make the required showing, given that she pleaded true 

to violating the conditions of her release, her sentence fell within the statutory 

maximum sentence she could receive upon revocation of her supervised 

release, and the district court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

appropriate to fashioning a revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 

634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 

261, 265 (5th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708, 3583(e)(3). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10577 Document: 00512986177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015