Case: 15-30340 Document: 00513388111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-30340
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 19, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL NELSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:09-CR-130
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Michael Nelson appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the
24-month sentence imposed. We affirm.
Nelson argues for the first time on appeal that the district court
procedurally erred in revoking his supervised release in part for his failure to
pay any amount towards his restitution without first ascertaining whether his
failure to pay was willful. We review his argument for plain error only. See
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-30340 Document: 00513388111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2016
No. 15-30340
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). The record
discloses that Nelson had multiple violations of the conditions of his supervised
release, including a refusal to comply with drug testing, which alone mandated
revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3); cf. United States v. Boswell, 605 F.2d
171, 173 (5th Cir. 1979). Moreover, the decision to revoke and impose a 24-
month term of imprisonment was not based on his failure to make restitution
payments but was instead based on the district court’s finding that he was
simply not amenable to supervised release, having failed to take advantage of
the numerous treatment opportunities afforded him and heed the warnings
and instructions from the probation office. Consequently, Nelson has shown
no clear or obvious procedural error on the part of the district court in revoking
his supervised release. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Nelson also argues that his 24-month revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable, as it unnecessarily punishes him for being poor,
homeless, drug addicted, and in need of medication and sets him up for failure
upon his eventual release. However, the seriousness of his underlying bank
robbery offense, his personal history and characteristics, and his proven
inability to subject himself to the direction of the probation officer and the
conditions of his supervised release support our determination that the district
court’s sentencing decision was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v.
Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2