USA v. Elisa Morin, No. 15-50765 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50765 Document: 00513495732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50765 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 6, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ELISA MORIN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-938-3 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elisa Morin appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. She contends that the district court’s failure to provide adequate reasons for the sentence, which is below the statutory maximum of 24 months but above the policy statement range of four to 10 months of imprisonment, renders the sentence plainly unreasonable. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50765 Document: 00513495732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 No. 15-50765 Because Morin did not object to the revocation sentence after it was imposed, we review her arguments for plain error. United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2013). To prevail under the plain error standard, Morin must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Warren, 720 F.3d at 327. She also must demonstrate that any error affected her substantial rights, meaning that “the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Warren, 720 F.3d at 327 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If these requirements are met, this court has the discretion to correct the error, but “only if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the district court provided a sufficiently detailed explanation for the sentence it imposed, it did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in stating its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
