IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH 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 counterfeit federal reserve notes. She argues that the sentence, which

exceeds the advisory sentencing guidelines range but is within the statutory

maximum, is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district

court failed to adequately identify the reasons for the sentence. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2012

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

Scicutella did not preserve her objections to the reasonableness of his

sentence. Accordingly, we will review the sentence for plain error only. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 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 will not be exercised unless the error

seriously affects 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 record reflects that the court considered counsel’s

arguments in mitigation of sentence and was aware 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 release. See 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 defendant 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 reasons 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. Scicutella has failed to explain not how a more detailed

reasoning process might have led the court to select 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: 03/22/2012
No. 11-50584

Finally, contrary to Scicutella’s argument, the 24-month sentence imposed

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