Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-15
Citations: 441 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 10-50824
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 238–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50824
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 15, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Green appeals the 18-month prison sentence he received upon the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the above-guidelines sentence. He did not object in the district court; thus, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009).
Although the district court's failure to provide specific reasons for the above-guidelines sentence is a clear, obvious error, see id. at 261-62, Green has not shown reversible plain error because he has not established that this error affects his substantial rights or the public reputation of the proceedings. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1428, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Green has not asserted, much less shown, how a more thorough explanation would have resulted in a shorter sentence, and there is no suggestion in the record that the district court considered any improper factor or would impose a different sentence on remand. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 261-62, 264. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.