Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-60079/USCOURTS-ca5-16-60079-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donovan Hickman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60079

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONOVAN HICKMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:04-CR-8-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donovan Hickman has appealed the above-guidelines statutorymaximum 24-month sentence of imprisonment imposed when his supervised 

release was revoked because of Hickman’s alcohol abuse and law violations. 

Hickman contends that the reasons given for the sentence were inadequate. 

Sentences imposed after revocation of supervised release are reviewed 

by this court under the plainly unreasonable standard of review. United States 

 

* 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

October 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60079 Document: 00513726704 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 16-60079

2

v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016). We ensure that “‘the district 

court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the 

[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous 

facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, including failing to 

explain a deviation from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting United States v. 

Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013)). 

The record reflects that the district court made repeated efforts to help 

Hickman overcome his alcohol problem, which it regarded as the cause of his 

criminal behavior, and that Hickman continued to violate the court’s orders 

and conditions of his supervised release. The district court’s explanation for 

the statutory maximum sentence and its comments at prior hearings reflect 

that the court was motivated by the sentencing factors of deterrence and 

protection of the public. The sentence is not plainly unreasonable and is, 

therefore, AFFIRMED. See Winding, 817 F.3d at 913.

 Case: 16-60079 Document: 00513726704 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016