USA v. Mark McCarty

Filing

USA v. Mark McCarty

Doc. 0

Case: 09-50945

Document: 00511214137

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50945 S u m m a r y Calendar August 25, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. M A R K DAVID MCCARTY, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 6:09-CR-195-1

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M a r k David McCarty has appealed the district court's order revoking his s u p e r v is e d release. McCarty contends that the district court violated his right t o due process in failing to enter a written order specifying the evidence it relied u p o n in revoking his supervised release and in failing to specify which violations it relied upon. Because McCarty did not raise these questions in the district c o u r t, this court's review is for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-50945

Document: 00511214137 Page: 2 No. 09-50945

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

F .3 d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1 4 2 9 (2009). M c C a r t y admitted the allegations in the petition for warrant or summons fo r offender under supervision, and he was given an opportunity to offer m it ig a t in g evidence. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th C ir . 1988). He contested only two facts, repayment of the $100 loan and

v io la t io n of the cell-phone rule; the remaining allegations, with respect to failure t o make restitution, violation of the prescription-drug rules, and failure to m a in t a in lawful employment, were not contested. There was no error, plain or o t h e r w is e . See id. A F F IR M E D .

2