Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Clark PERSCHMANN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-14
Citations: 612 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 14-10755
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Clark PERSCHMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Clark PERSCHMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10755
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Herman Rogers, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
William Clark Perschmann, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the 18-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, William Clark Per-schmann argues that .the district court used the wrong advisory guidelines range. We review this argument for plain error due to his failure to present it to the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir.2009). To meet this standard, Perschmann must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). We have discretion to correct such an error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Perschmann has not shown that the district court plainly erred by concluding that the bank robberies that led to the revocation were Grade A violations of his release and by using the corresponding guidelines range to sentence him. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.