Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-04
Citations: 212 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 05-50219
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50219
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 4, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret M. Embry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michelle Mitchell appeals the 24-month sentence she received following the revocation of her supervised release. She contends that the district court erred in calculating the applicable recommended sentencing range because it classified her release violation as a Grade A violation rather than a Grade B violation. The Government does not contest Mitchell's assertion that hers was a Grade B violation. Instead, the Government asserts that the error did not amount to reversible plain error.
We agree. Although Mitchell has demonstrated obvious error based on the guidelines miscalculation, she has failed to demonstrate that the error affected her substantial rights. Cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The sentence imposed fell within the two-year statutory maximum authorized upon revocation, and Mitchell has not shown that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence but for the guidelines miscalculation. See id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 472, 3559(a), 3583(e)(3).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.