IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-51044

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHELLE JANETT MAXWELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:02:CR-107-1

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Michelle Janett Maxwell appeals the sentence imposed following the

revocation of her supervised release. The district court sentenced Maxwell to a

nine-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by an 18-month term of

supervised release. Maxwell was sentenced to home confinement during the

first nine months of her term of supervised release, and the district court also

ordered electronic monitoring during that nine-month period.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 16, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-51044 Document: 00511176079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2010
No. 09-51044

Maxwell argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was

unreasonable because it included a period of home confinement. She contends

that the sentence of home confinement is a greater restriction on her liberty than

is reasonably necessary to address the goals of sentencing.

Because Maxwell did not object to the sentence in the district court, we

review for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60

(5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error

that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. Puckett v. United

States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this

court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

The district court may impose any sentence that falls within the

appropriate statutory maximum term of imprisonment allowed for the

revocation of a sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In so doing, the district court

is directed to consider the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including

the non-binding policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing

Guidelines. United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90-93 (5th Cir. 1994). Under

the statutory framework governing revocation and punishment for violating a

condition of supervised release, a district court may (1) impose the maximum

sentence of incarceration allowed under the revocation statutes; (2) “order home

detention as an alternative to incarceration”; or (3) order an incarceration term

less than the maximum allowable term and reimpose a term of supervised

release. United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 850-51 (5th Cir. 2004)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Pursuant to § 3553(a)(1), the district court

is to consider “the history and characteristics of the defendant” in determining

the sentence to be imposed.

The record shows that Maxwell got into legal difficulty following her

presence at an establishment known as Rack Daddy’s Club at 3:40 a.m.

Additionally, Maxwell violated the terms of her supervised release by failing to

2

Case: 09-51044 Document: 00511176079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2010
No. 09-51044

report to her probation officer and by failing to notify the probation officer 10

days prior to any change in residency or employment. In view of the foregoing,

the district court’s determination to sentence Maxwell to a period of home

confinement, in conjunction with electronic monitoring, was not unreasonable,

and Maxwell has not shown plain error. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-51044 Document: 00511176079 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2010