Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10760/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10760-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Edward Sims
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10760

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL EDWARD SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-184-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Edward Sims appeals the sentence he received upon revocation of 

the five-year term of probation imposed on his guilty plea conviction for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 

methamphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565; 21 U.S.C. § 846. The revocation 

sentence was an 18-month prison term, which was above the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement advisory range, to be followed by a 

* 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 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10760 Document: 00512973433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2015
No. 14-10760

three-year term of supervised release. Reviewing for plain error, we affirm. 

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

685 F.3d 491, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2012).

There is no merit to the contention that the district court inadequately

considered Sims’s arguments and inadequately explained the revocation 

sentence selected. The district court gave a detailed and explicit explanation 

for the within-statutory-range punishment selected, stating that a sentence 

above the policy statement range was required because Sims failed to 

appreciate the lenient treatment accorded him when sentenced originally, was 

not amenable to supervision, and presented a danger to the community. Thus, 

Sims cannot show plain error because he cannot “demonstrate any error at all.” 

United States v. Teuschler, 689 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 2012); see Kippers, 685 

F.3d at 498. Sims’s alternative argument—that a procedural objection should 

not have been required at sentencing—is foreclosed. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 n.2 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10760 Document: 00512973433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2015