*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60274 c/w

No. 10-60286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID B. MULCAHY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:10-CR-9-1

USDC No. 1:02-CR-97-1

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David B. Mulcahy appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation

of his supervised release subsequent to his convictions for possession of

ammunition by a convicted felon and bank fraud. The district court revoked

Mulcahy’s supervised release in both cases, and it sentenced Mulcahy to 24

months of imprisonment in the possession of ammunition by a convicted felon

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 10-60274 c/w

No. 10-60286

2

case and 12 months of imprisonment in the bank fraud case, the sentences to be

served consecutively for a total sentence of 36 months of imprisonment.

Mulcahy argues that the district court erred because it failed to provide

sufficient reasons for the sentence. He maintains that all of his violations were

Grade C violations, making the sentence an upward variance from the guidelines

sentence range, requiring the district court to provide detailed reasons for the

sentence. He also contends that the district court was required to provide

reasons for the sentence in the written judgment but did not.

While Mulcahy objected to the substantive reasonableness ofthe sentence

in the district court, he did not object to the sufficiency ofthe reasoning provided

by the district court. Accordingly, we review this issue for plain error only. See

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain

error, Mulcahy must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that

affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429

(2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error

but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Assuming arguendo that the district court committed clear or obvious

error by not providing a sufficient explanation for the sentence, Mulcahy has not

shown that the error affected his substantial rights. The district court revoked

Mulcahy’s supervised release after Mulcahy admitted to multiple violations and

the court heard evidence regarding other violations. Thus, Mulcahy has not

shown that his ability to appeal his substantive sentence has been affected, and

our ability to review the sentence has not been affected. See Whitelaw, 580 F.3d

at 263-64. Additionally, Mulcahy has not shown that his sentence would have

been different if the district court provided a more extensive explanation for the

sentence. Accordingly, Mulcahy has not shown that the district court’s failure
No. 10-60274 c/w

No. 10-60286

3

to provide specific reasons for the sentence affected his substantial rights, and

he has, therefore, failed to show reversible plain error. See id. at 263-65.

Mulcahy argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. He

maintains that his violations were administrative Grade C violations, that the

advisory guidelines range in the possession of ammunition case was 6-12 months

of imprisonment, and that the advisory guidelines range in the bank fraud case

was 7-13 months of imprisonment. He contends that the evidence supporting

the violations to which he did not plead guilty was insufficient. He maintains

thatthe 36-month sentence was an unreasonable upward variation of 11 months

from the top of the advisory guidelines range.

We review revocation sentences under “(a) both the ‘plainly unreasonable’

and the Booker unreasonableness standards of review or (b) the more exacting

Booker unreasonableness standard.” United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425,

428 (5th Cir. 2008).

On revocation of supervised release, the district court may impose any

sentence that falls within the statutory maximum term authorized. See

§ 3583(e)(3). Assuming arguendo that all of Mulcahy’s violations were Grade C

violations, the total sentence of 36 months of imprisonment was 11 months

above the top of the advisory guidelines range and well within the statutory

maximum. Revocation sentences exceeding the guidelines range but not

exceeding the statutory maximum have been upheld as a matter of routine

against challenges that the sentences were substantively unreasonable. See

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265. Furthermore, while Mulcahy argues that his

violations were merely administrative violations, he pleaded guilty to five

different violations, including the use of cocaine. Accordingly, Mulcahy has not

shown that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See id.

AFFIRMED.