United States v. Cynthia Robinson , 459 F. App'x 416 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-50579     Document: 00511740474         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/30/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 30, 2012
    No. 11-50579
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    CYNTHIA ANN ROBINSON,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:02-CR-82-1
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Cynthia Ann Robinson was sentenced, inter alia, to 36-months’
    imprisonment for violating conditions of her supervised release. Robinson
    contends the sentence, which was above the range indicated by policy statements
    in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, is substantively unreasonable because
    it: overstated the seriousness of her supervised-release violations; and failed to
    reflect her personal circumstances.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50579    Document: 00511740474     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/30/2012
    No. 11-50579
    As our court recently held, revocation sentences are reviewed under a
    deferential plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 
    634 F.3d 841
    , 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 496
    (2011). First evaluated is
    whether the district court committed procedural error; then, whether the
    sentence is substantively reasonable “under an abuse-of-discretion standard”.
    
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted). If the sentence is unreasonable, we
    determine “whether the error was obvious under existing law”. 
    Id. As reflected
    above, Robinson does not claim procedural error. And, for her
    above-stated claim, Robinson has not shown her revocation sentence is plainly
    unreasonable.    Her sentence was within the statutory maximum term of
    imprisonment the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344
    (Robinson’s original convicted offense (bank fraud)), 3559(a)(2) (original offense
    was Class B felony), 3583(e)(3) (three-year maximum for violating supervised
    release on Class B felony).     The district court considered the nature and
    circumstances of Robinson’s admitted supervised-released violations (inter alia,
    committing forgery and theft), her history of stealing from her employers, and
    the need to protect the public, and concluded that a 36-month sentence was
    appropriate (to run concurrently, not consecutively (as had been requested by the
    Government), with the state sentence of 20-months’ imprisonment for her new
    state conviction).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-50579

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 416

Judges: Barksdale, Per Curiam, Smith, Southwick

Filed Date: 1/30/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023