USA v. Donovan Hickman, No. 16-60079 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60079 Document: 00513726704 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60079 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 20, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DONOVAN HICKMAN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:04-CR-8-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Donovan Hickman has appealed the above-guidelines statutorymaximum 24-month sentence of imprisonment imposed when his supervised release was revoked because of Hickman’s alcohol abuse and law violations. Hickman contends that the reasons given for the sentence were inadequate. Sentences imposed after revocation of supervised release are reviewed by this court under the plainly unreasonable standard of review. United States 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60079 Document: 00513726704 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 No. 16-60079 v. Winding, 817 F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016). We ensure that “‘the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, including failing to explain a deviation from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013)). The record reflects that the district court made repeated efforts to help Hickman overcome his alcohol problem, which it regarded as the cause of his criminal behavior, and that Hickman continued to violate the court’s orders and conditions of his supervised release. The district court’s explanation for the statutory maximum sentence and its comments at prior hearings reflect that the court was motivated by the sentencing factors of deterrence and protection of the public. The sentence is not plainly unreasonable and is, therefore, AFFIRMED. See Winding, 817 F.3d at 913. 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.
