Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sherry Anna CORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-18
Citations: 311 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 08-60654
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sherry Anna CORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 683–683

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sherry Anna CORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-60654
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2009.
John Arthur Meynardie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellen Maier Allred, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sherry Anna Cord appeals the revocation of supervised release entered on July 15, 2008. She argues that the events that resulted in her termination from a community corrections center were not her fault and that she showed progress while on supervised release. She has not, however, shown that the district court's decision was based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Applying the abuse of discretion standard, we find no error. See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir.1995).
Cord further contends that her 10-month prison sentence was substantively unreasonable. Cord's sentence was within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, below the statutory maximum, and imposed after her third revocation of supervised release. Under the plain error standard, Cord has failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious error affecting her substantial rights. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 325, 169 L.Ed.2d 229 (2007).
The judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.