### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50489 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
VANESSA QUEEN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 626

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Vanessa Queen appeals the 24

- month prison sentence imposed upon revocation of her second term of supervised release , follow ing her conviction and sentence for transporting an undocumented alien for financial gain. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) (bringing in certain aliens for financial gain) ; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (modification of conditions or revocation)

.

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 10, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50489 Document: 00512591589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2014No. 13

- 50489
“At this time, the [Sentencing] Commission has chosen to promulgate policy statements only” regarding sentences for revocation of supervised release. U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 , Pt. A, cmt. 1 (2013) . Even before Booker , the supervised

- release

- violation policy statements were advisory only. E.g. , United States v. Giddings , 37 F.3d 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1994). Queen maintains her sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (sentencing factors). In that regard , s he contends her sentence, which exceeds the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, policy

- statement range , overstated the seriousness of her violations by placing too much emphasis on a state as sault charge , which she contends was dismissed. A properly preserved objection to a revocation sentence is reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard, discussed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (appeal of sentence without Guideline). United States v. M iller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Because Queen did not object to the sentence in district court, review is instead only for plain error. E.g. , United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259

– 60 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Under that standard, she must show a plain (clear or obvious) forfeited error that affected her substantial rights. E.g. , Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If s he does so , we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. I d. Queen does not den y the State of Texas charged her with assault during her second supervised release; and , she points to no evidence that the assault charge has been dismissed. Nor does s he cite authority for the proposition that the district court was not free to consider a dismissed state charge

. It goes without saying that p arties are requir ed to brief issues sufficiently and provide legal authority in support of the assertions presented

. E.g. , United States v.

2 Case: 13-50489 Document: 00512591589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2014No. 13

- 50489

Charles , 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the finding , by preponderance of the evidence, that Queen committed the assau lt , was a factual determination , which established a propensity for violence and thus factored into her history and characteristics under § 3553(a)(1). Because Queen did not object to th at finding , it can not constitute plain error. E.g. , United States v. Conn , 657 F.3d 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Additionally, the court based its sentence on Queen’s drug u s e , in violation of the terms of her supervised release

. She does not challenge that additional basis for the within

- statutory

- maximum sentence

. Our co urt has held revocation sentences , above the advisory range but within the statutory

maximum , do not constitute plain error. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d at 265 (citing cases). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 13-50489 Document: 00512591589 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2014