United States v. Miguel Silva, Jr. , 359 F. App'x 547 ( 2010 )

Case: 09-50275 Document: 0051998217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 7, 2010
No. 09-50275
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MIGUEL SILVA, JR., also known as Miguel Silva,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-508-1
Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Silva, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation
of his supervised release. Silva argues that his above-guidelines 24-month
sentence was unreasonable. He contends that the district court improperly
made his need for medical care or other correctional treatment the sole criterion
in its sentencing determination and that his marijuana usage and failure to
follow reporting conditions did not merit a 24-month sentence.
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-50275 Document: 0051998217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010
No. 09-50275
Prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we upheld a sentence
imposed after revocation of supervised release unless it violated the law or was
plainly unreasonable. United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2000);
see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), (4). In Booker, however, the Supreme Court directed
appellate courts to review sentences for reasonableness. 543 U.S. at 259-62.
Although we have not squarely addressed the proper standard of review to be
applied to revocation sentences, we need not do so today because Silva’s sentence
passes muster under either standard of review. See United States v. Hinson, 429
F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005).
Although Silva’s sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range, it did
not exceed the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. Furthermore, the record indicates that the
district court considered the advisory guidelines range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, and the arguments of counsel. Accordingly, Silva has not shown that his
sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See Hinson, 429 F.3d
at 119-20.
AFFIRMED.
2