IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10107
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MARTIN MATHEW WILSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:93-CR-2-1-Y
--------------------
September 5, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martin Mathew Wilson appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
by the district court after it found that he had violated four
terms of his supervised release. Wilson argues that the district
court committed reversible error at sentencing by failing to
recognize that it had the discretion not to revoke his supervised
release at all. As the Government argues, because Wilson did not
raise this argument in the district court, review is for plain
error only. See, e.g., United States v. Leonard, 157 F.3d 343,
345 (5th Cir. 1998). While the district court may have erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-10107
-2-
concluding that it was required to revoke Wilson’s supervised
release, the Government is correct when it argues that any such
error did not affect Wilson’s substantial rights. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that nothing in the district
court’s sentencing suggests that – instead of imposing the most
severe sentence in the applicable range – it would have
altogether declined to revoke Wilson’s supervised release if it
had only known that it had the discretion to do so. Accordingly,
Wilson has not demonstrated any mistake that rises to the level
of plain error. See id. at 346; United States v. Ravitch, 128
F.3d 865, 869-72 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.