### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50584 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARCHELL RENEE SCICUTELLA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:09-CR-125-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marchell Renee Scicutella appeals the 24-month term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of her supervised release for conspiracy to make c o u n t e rfeit federal reserve notes. She argues that the sentence, which exceeds the advisory sentencing guidelines ran g e b u t is within the statutory maximum, is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately identify the reasons for the sentence. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 22 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50584 Document: 00511797761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-50584

Scicutella did not preserv e her objections to the reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, we will review th e s e n tence for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S

. 1 29, 135 (2009); United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain-error review, Scicutella must show that an error occurred, that the error was clear or obvious, and that the error affected her substantial rights. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. If she establishes those factors, the decision to correct the forfeited error is within our sound discretion, which wil l not be exercised unless the error seriously aff

ects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. Although the district court’s comments in imposing the revocation sentence were brief, the re c o r d reflects that the court considered counsel’s arguments in mitigation of sentence and w a s a w are of Scicutella’s “personal problems” but that the court determined that Scicutella’s conduct in absconding from supervision and failing to abide by the terms of the supervision were serious violations, meriting a significant punishment. 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 failing to abide by the terms of supervised r e l e a s e . Se e U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. comment. ¶ 3(b); see also United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.) (“[T]he goal of revocation is to punish a defenda n t for violating the terms of the supervised release.”), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). Assuming arguendo that the district court erred in failing to adequately identify the r e asons for the sentence, any error will not warrant relief unless Scicutella can show that the error affected her substantial rights. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. S c i cutella has failed to explain not how a more detailed reasoning process might have led the court t o s e l e c t a lower sentence, and the record does not suggest that the district court would impose a lighter sentence on remand. See Whitelaw , 580 F.3d at 263-64.
2 Case: 11-50584 Document: 00511797761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012No. 11-50584

Fin ally , c o ntr ary to Scicutella’s argument, the 24-month sentence i mp o s e d in Scicutella’s case is not substantively unreasonable. See Whitelaw , 580 F.3d at 265. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-50584 Document: 00511797761 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2012