USA v. Donna Cannon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10577 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 04/20/2015 for Appellant Donna Jean Cannon [14-10577]

Case: 14-10577

Document: 00512986177

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/30/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 14-10577
Summary Calendar

FILED
March 30, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DONNA JEAN CANNON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-36-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Donna Jean Cannon was convicted of possessing stolen mail in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. She was sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment and
three years of supervised release. While on supervised release, Cannon tested
positive for methamphetamine use; failed to attend scheduled substance abuse
counseling, submit required urine samples, report to the probation office, and
inform probation of a change in her residence; and impeded probation’s ability

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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

Case: 14-10577

Document: 00512986177

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/30/2015

No. 14-10577
to randomly check her residence for contraband. The district court revoked her
supervised release and sentenced her to 18 months of imprisonment.
Cannon appeals her 18-month sentence, arguing that it was
unreasonable because it failed to account for her battle with drug addiction
and her admission to having a drug problem. Because Cannon failed to alert
the district court to the specific alleged error she raises on appeal, we review
for plain error only. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir.
2013). To show plain error, Cannon must show a forfeited error that is clear
or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes such a showing, the court has the
discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Cannon fails to make the required showing, given that she pleaded true
to violating the conditions of her release, her sentence fell within the statutory
maximum sentence she could receive upon revocation of her supervised
release, and the district court considered relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
appropriate to fashioning a revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller,
634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256,
261, 265 (5th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708, 3583(e)(3).
AFFIRMED.

2