IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60108

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

NATHAN BURNSIDE, also known as Nathan Jermaine Burnside, also known 

as Nate,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CR-23-2

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathan Burnside appeals the 42-month sentence imposed after the third 

revocation of his supervised release. He contends the sentence — which is less 

than the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months and above the advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines policy range of 24 to 30 months — is substantively 

 

* 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

November 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60108 Document: 00513755354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
No. 16-60108

2

unreasonable. In support, Burnside contends the court erred in balancing the 

sentencing factors by giving undue weight to some and devaluing others. 

A contention that was not properly preserved in district court is reviewed 

only for plain error. Under that standard, defendant must show a forfeited 

plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion 

to correct the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it “seriously 

affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. 

Although Burnside did not expressly object to the 42-month sentence, he 

maintains he presented a “de facto objection” by arguing for a sentence within 

the advisory sentencing range after the court sought arguments against a 

higher, statutory sentence. Nonetheless, he did not contend the sentence 

imposed was substantively unreasonable, or that the court clearly erred in 

balancing the factors, as he does now. Because Burnside did not raise these 

issues in district court, review is for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. 

Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 

537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). 

The revocation sentence at issue is to run consecutively to a 60-month 

sentence imposed following Burnside’s guilty plea conviction for a new drug

offense. The court expressly considered the advisory sentencing range in 

imposing the revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(4)(B), 3583(e). It 

also considered Burnside’s repeated violations of supervision, his approach to 

rehabilitation, and his disrespect for the court and federal law, all of which 

involve the history and characteristics of the defendant and the need to protect 

the public and deter criminal conduct. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). 

Accordingly, Burnside has not shown the court committed clear or obvious

 Case: 16-60108 Document: 00513755354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
No. 16-60108

3

error in imposing his sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 

260, 265 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-60108 Document: 00513755354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/10/2016