Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derosun BOATNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-18
Citations: 648 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 15-30902
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derosun BOATNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derosun BOATNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30902
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 18, 2016.
Mary Patricia Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jamie A. Flowers, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Derosun Boatner was convicted of one charge of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence protective order. The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 18 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Special conditions of supervision included counseling and a one-year period in a community corrections facility immediately upon release from prison. In this appeal, Boatner argues that the condition of supervised release requiring him to spend one year in a community corrections facility is plainly erroneous because it does not meet the goal of hampering his liberty to the degree least necessary to promote the other aims of sentencing.
As Boatner concedes, review is for plain error only because he did not object to his sentence on this basis. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir.2007). To establish plain error, a defendant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (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. Id.
Review of the record in light of this standard shows no clear or obvious error, Rather, the disputed condition is neither unwarranted nor unduly restrictive in light of the sentencing goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and treatment. See United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 852 (5th Cir.2004).
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.