
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Noble HAMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-11396 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed June 5, 2017
    Amber Michelle Grand, Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Brandon Elliott Beck, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock,, TX, Aisha J. Dennis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Noble Hammons appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court erred in ordering two consecutive terms of imprisonment because the court’s original sentence had been for one term of supervised release. Given Hammons’s objection at the revocation hearing, we review under the “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). If this court determines that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, it may reverse the district court only if “the-error was obvious under existing law.” Id. (quoting United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)).

Hammons has not met this standard. Given the ambiguities in the oral pronouncement and written judgment as to whether the original sentence was for one term of supervised release or two concurrent terms of supervised release, we assess the intent of the sentencing court as “discerned from the entire record.” United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Contrary to Ham-mons’s arguments, the district court here did not improperly alter its original sentence but rather clarified it. Because of the district court’s explanation of its intent, and the absence of authority to support Hammons’s argument, he has not shown that the district court committed an obvious error under existing law. Warren, 720 F.3d at 326.

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       Pursuant to 5th 'Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     