UNITED STATES v. PARIS (2019)

Defendant-Appellant Danelle Lee Paris appeals her 24-month within-guidelines sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. She contends that the district court committed procedural error by denying her a mitigating-role reduction without articulating a factual basis for doing so. See generally U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Paris did not timely and properly object, so we review the district court’s decision for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013).

Paris offers no plain-error analysis; she simply concludes that the district court’s ruling was procedurally unreasonable. She neither contends nor shows that the unreasonableness of that ruling was clear or obvious, as opposed to reasonably disputable, and she entirely omits discussion of the third and fourth prongs of plain error review. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Consequently, Paris has waived these issues. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010). She therefore cannot show plain error in her sentencing. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423; United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that it is appellant’s burden to establish each plain error prong).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.