UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-10367
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT DANIEL DRADDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 4:97-CR-009-A-1)
_________________________________________________________________
November 6, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Daniel Draddy appeals the sentence he received
following revocation of his supervised release. He contends, for
the first time on appeal, that the district judge acted pursuant to
a “de facto policy” of sentencing defendants, whose supervised
release is revoked, to terms exceeding the sentencing ranges listed
in the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Guidelines, without “truly” considering these ranges. In support,
Draddy relies on sentences imposed in other revocation-of-
supervised-release cases before the same district judge.
Alternatively, Draddy contends, also for the first time on
appeal, that amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4) made Chapter
Seven policy statements mandatory upon courts when sentencing for
violations of supervised release; and that the district court
therefore erred by sentencing Draddy outside of the policy
statement range. (Recognizing that this court has held that the
policy statements are merely advisory, United States v. Escamilla,
70 F.3d 835, 835 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he policy statements in
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory and ...
a court only need consider them in rendering a decision.”)
(emphasis in original), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1368
(1996), Draddy states that he presents the issue in order to
preserve it for further review.)
Because Draddy failed to present either of these contentions
in the district court, we review only for plain error. E.g.,
United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 730 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 408 (1996). To demonstrate plain
error, Draddy must show (1) an error by the district court, (2)
that is clear or obvious, and (3) affects his substantial rights.
E.g., United States v. Calverly, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.
1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725
- 2 -
(1993)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995). Moreover, even when
these factors are present, it is within our discretion to decline
to correct errors that do not “seriously affect the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. at
162 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)).
Pursuant to our review of the briefs and the record, we conclude
that there is no plain error. Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
- 3 -