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, following her conviction 

and sentence for transporting an undocumented alien for financial gain. See 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 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50489 Document: 00512591589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2014
No. 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, she 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 assault 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. Miller, 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 she 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. Id.

Queen does not deny 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 she cite authority for the proposition that

the district court was not free to consider a dismissed state charge. It goes 

without saying that parties are required 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: 04/10/2014
No. 13-50489

Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the finding, by 

preponderance of the evidence, that Queen committed the assault, 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 that finding, it cannot 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 use, in 

violation of the terms of her supervised release. She does not challenge that 

additional basis for the within-statutory-maximum sentence. Our court has 

held revocation sentences, above the advisory range but within the statutorymaximum, 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