IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30459

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CR-20075-1

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Gregory James Caton appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the

district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that

the district court reversibly erred by failing to consider the imprisonment range

set forth in the policy statement of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 and by failing to articulate

adequate reasons for deviating from that range.

Caton did not raise in the district court the arguments that he presents to

this court. This court’s review is therefore limited to plain error. See United

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2011

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: 10-30459 Document: 00511519447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2011
No. 10-30459

States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Caton must show that

there is an error that is clear or obvious and that the error affects his substantial

rights. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). If these

factors are established, the court has discretion to correct the forfeited error, but

only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

the judicial proceedings. Id.

The record, which includes the probation officer’s dispositional report,

indicates that the district court implicitly considered the sentencing range set

forth in the policy statements of the Guidelines. To the extent that Caton is

contending that the district court erred by failing to consider the correct

guidelines range, his argument fails to establish plain error as he fails to argue,

and the record does not suggest, that the district court would have imposed a

lesser sentence had it more explicitly considered the correct guidelines range.

See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 650-51 (5th Cir. 2010); United States

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). Also, the district

court’s comments throughout the revocation hearings and prior to the

pronouncement of sentence reflect extensive consideration of the nature and

circumstances of Caton’s violations of the conditions of his supervised release,

as well as significant consideration of Caton’s personal history and

characteristics. Therefore, the record reflects implicit consideration of the

factors set forth in § 3553(a)(1). The district court thus provided adequate

reasons for the sentence imposed. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 262-65. Further,

Caton does not assert that a more thorough explanation by the district court

would have changed his sentence. He has therefore failed to show that any error

regarding the adequacy of the district court’s reasons affected his substantial

rights. See id at 264-65.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-30459 Document: 00511519447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2011