USA v. William Perschmann

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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