IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10687

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HOLLY LYNN BENSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CR-22-1

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Holly Lynn Benson appeals the 45-month, above-guideline prison 

sentence imposed upon revocation of probation as procedurally unreasonable. 

For the first time, she argues that the district court procedurally erred by not 

providing adequate reasons for the sentence in light of her nonfrivolous 

arguments in favor of leniency.

 

* 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 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10687 Document: 00514863529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2019
No. 18-10687

2

When a defendant properly preserves an objection to a revocation 

sentence for appeal, the sentence is reviewed under a “plainly unreasonable” 

standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4); United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 

497 (5th Cir. 2012). However, Benson did not properly preserve the argument 

she raises on appeal because she raised only a general objection to the 

reasonableness of her sentence in the district court. See Kippers, 685 F.3d at 

497; United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009). She concedes 

that her general objection to the sentence was not sufficient to preserve the 

error, but she nevertheless argues, to preserve the issues for future review, 

that such a specific objection should not be required where a leniency argument 

was raised and that Whitelaw was wrongly decided. It is well settled that one 

panel of this court may not overrule a prior decision of another panel in the 

absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting 

en banc or by the Supreme Court. See United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 

489 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, we review the issue on appeal for plain error. See 

Kippers, 685 F.3d at 497; Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 259-60.

Although the district court did not expressly comment on Benson’s 

mitigation arguments, it implicitly considered them. Moreover, the district 

court stated that the sentence was necessary to further the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

goals of providing adequate deterrence and protecting the public. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C); see Kippers, 685 F.3d at 497-98. Additionally, the record 

reflects that Benson was treated leniently after her first reported probation 

violation for drug use but was not deterred from committing subsequent 

violations even though she was admonished that future violations would result 

in adverse action. 

 Case: 18-10687 Document: 00514863529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2019
No. 18-10687

3

Under the circumstances, Benson has not shown that the district court’s 

failure to provide a lengthier explanation of the chosen sentence constituted a 

clear or obvious error. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

 Case: 18-10687 Document: 00514863529 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2019