USA v. John Anderson, No. 15-60906 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60906 Summary Calendar FILED August 22, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN ROBERT ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:06-CR-2-1 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Robert Anderson appeals from the statutory maximum sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. For the first time on appeal, Anderson argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to provide a specific explanation for its above- 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-60906 Document: 00513645714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2016 No. 15-60906 guidelines sentence. Reviewing his argument for plain error only, see United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009), we hold that the record discloses no clear or obvious error on the part of the district court in this regard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Anderson also argues that the statutory maximum sentence was substantively unreasonable; however, the record reveals that Anderson did not comply with the conditions of his supervised release during the three terms that had already been imposed. He has pointed to nothing in the record to show that the district court’s sentence was an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). 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.