Case: 13-10929 Document: 00512743010 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-10929 August 22, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOHN WILLIAM STURM,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-8-1
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant John William Sturm appeals the 24-month
sentence imposed on revocation of his term of supervised release. Sturm
argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district
court failed adequately to explain its reasons for the sentence imposed,
impairing our ability to review the reasons for his sentence. He also argues
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-10929 Document: 00512743010 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2014
No. 13-10929
failed to account for several sentencing factors that should have received
significant weight.
Sturm did not object in the district court to the adequacy of its reasons
for the sentence or to the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, so our review
is for plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.
2009). To establish plain error, an appellant must show a forfeited error that
is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have the
discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Making a
showing of reversible plain error “is difficult, as it should be.” Puckett, 556 U.S.
at 135 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sturm has not made such a showing as to either alleged error.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2