USA v. William Perschmann


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10755 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 09/04/2015 for Appellant William Clark Perschmann [14-10755]

Download PDF
Case: 14-10755 Document: 00513154764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10755 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 14, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. WILLIAM CLARK PERSCHMANN, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-263-1 Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the 18-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, William Clark Perschmann 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 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-10755 Document: 00513154764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 No. 14-10755 rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (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. 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. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?