USA v. Robert Hammon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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