USA v. Robert Hammon


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11396 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/26/2017 for Appellant Robert Noble Hammons [16-11396]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11396 Document: 00514020061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-11396 Summary Calendar FILED June 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. ROBERT NOBLE HAMMONS, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-360-1 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Noble Hammons appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court erred in ordering two consecutive terms of imprisonment because the court’s original sentence had been for one term of supervised release. Given Hammons’s objection at the revocation hearing, we review under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-11396 Document: 00514020061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 No. 16-11396 Cir. 2013). If this court determines that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, it may reverse the district court only if “the error was obvious under existing law.” Id. (quoting United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)). Hammons has not met this standard. Given the ambiguities in the oral pronouncement and written judgment as to whether the original sentence was for one term of supervised release or two concurrent terms of supervised release, we assess the intent of the sentencing court as “discerned from the entire record.” United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Contrary to Hammons’s arguments, the district court here did not improperly alter its original sentence but rather clarified it. Because of the district court’s explanation of its intent, and the absence of authority to support Hammons’s argument, he has not shown that the district court committed an obvious error under existing law. Warren, 720 F.3d at 326. 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?