United States v. Lacey Horn, 690 F. App'x 278

Horn pleaded guilty to burglary in a special maritime and territorial jurisdiction and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, followed by a term of supervised release.
Horn violated supervised release multiple times; the most recent violation involved possession of a controlled substance, triggering mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1).
The district court revoked supervised release and imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment on the third revocation.
Horn appealed, arguing (1) procedural error — including that the district court ‘‘predetermined’’ her sentence — and (2) that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
She did not raise the specific procedural error claim in the district court, so the court of appeals reviewed that claim only for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court committed reversible procedural error in imposing revocation sentence	Horn contends court erred procedurally and had predetermined the sentence	Government: revocation mandated by § 3583(g)(1); court may consider § 3553(a) factors when revoking under § 3583(g)	No plain error: even if § 3553(a)(2)(A) is normally excluded, when revocation is required under § 3583(g) the court may consider § 3553(a) factors; predetermination claim abandoned for inadequate briefing
Whether Horn forfeited the procedural challenge by failing to raise it below	Horn argues error nonetheless	Government argues failure to preserve limits review to plain error	Forfeiture found; plain-error standard applies
Whether the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable	Horn argues 24 months is substantively unreasonable	Government defends sentence as within court’s discretionary assessment of § 3553(a) factors	Sentence not plainly unreasonable; appellate court will not reweigh sentencing factors
Whether the court should correct any plain error that affected substantial rights	Horn seeks correction	Government opposes correction absent clear error affecting substantial rights	No reversible plain error shown; no correction warranted

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (preservation and plain-error review principles in revocation appeals)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for plain-error review)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (limits on considering § 3553(a)(2)(A) in revocation sentencing)
United States v. Illies, 805 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2015) (when § 3583(g) mandates revocation, court may consider § 3553(a) factors in setting term)
United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (guidance on revocation sentencing review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate courts should not reweigh sentencing factors; abuse-of-discretion standard)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (substantive-reasonableness review of revocation sentences)
United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (argument abandonment for inadequate appellate briefing)