IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50576

 c/w 11-50582

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GINA MARIE SHORTER,

Defendant-Appellant

_____________________________________

Cons w/ NO. 11-50582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

GINA M. SHORTER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-143-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 2, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 11-50576 Document: 00511775781 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2012
No. 11-50576 c/w 11-50582

PER CURIAM:*

Gina Marie Shorter appeals the 45-month sentence that the district court

imposed after revoking two concurrent terms of supervised release. Shorter’s

consecutive 21-month and 24-month sentences were greater than those

recommended by the advisory Sentencing Guidelines but not greater than the

statutory maximum sentences. Shorter admitted violating conditions of her

supervised release by smoking marijuana and by failing, for more than two

years, to inform the probation officer about her romantic relationship with a

convicted felon, Anthony Marquez.

We review the sentence only to determine whether it is plainly

unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 132 S. Ct 496 (2011). We first look for procedural error, and if we find

none we consider “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). “The fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that a different

sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court has discretion to

impose any sentence within the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. 

United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2008). Where the

Guidelines are silent the court may impose the sentences consecutively. United

States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 929 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2001).

Shorter contends that the district court erred by finding that she called

Marquez over 200 times after being directed not to do so. “[S]electing a sentence

based on clearly erroneous facts” is a procedural error. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

However, the district court did not commit a procedural error because the court

did not purport to speak in precise terms concerning the number of calls but only

 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.

2

Case: 11-50576 Document: 00511775781 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2012
No. 11-50576 c/w 11-50582

to indicate that Shorter was noncompliant with the probation officer’s direction. 

There is no suggestion that the court would have found any significant difference

between 200 calls and 100 calls, or 50, or even one, when none were allowed.

More significantly, the court did not select the sentence based on the calls. 

Rather, the court cited Shorter’s chronic history of concealment and

untruthfulness whenever she has been on supervised release. The court noted,

among other things, that Shorter “files false reports, and she doesn’t tell the

truth to the probation officer and never has.” The sentence was thus based on

Shorter’s breach of trust and was not, as suggested by Shorter, punishment for

falling in love with the wrong man. The court’s rationale for the sentence was

fully consistent with the primary goal of a sentence on revocation, which is to

sanction the violator for breaching the trust implicit in supervised release. See

U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. comment. ¶ 3(b); Miller, 634 F.3d at 843.

Shorter’s arguments about the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors simply invite us

to reweigh those factors, which is contrary to abuse-of-discretion review. See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The sentence was not plainly unreasonable, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-50576 Document: 00511775781 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2012