United States v. Price , 224 F. App'x 357 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10734
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BETTY PRICE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-114-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Betty Price appeals from the sentence imposed following
revocation of her term of supervised release. Price argues that
her sentence is unreasonable because it substantially exceeded the
advisory guideline range and the district court failed to provide
sufficient reasons for the sentence. She requests this court to
vacate her sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
The Government has moved for dismissal of the appeal or for
summary affirmance on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction
to consider Price’s appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). Because
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-10734
-2-
Price cannot prevail on the merits of her appeal, we pretermit
consideration of this issue. See United States v. Weathersby, 958
F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). The Government’s motion for dismissal
of the appeal or for summary affirmance is therefore denied. The
Government’s alternative request for an extension of time to file
an appeal brief is also denied as unnecessary.
This court need not decide the appropriate standard of review
for a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release in the
wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because Price
has not shown that her sentence was either unreasonable or plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th
Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Price’s
sentence, while in excess of the recommended range, was within the
statutory maximum sentence that the district court could have
imposed. Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the
district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. See
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, the sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED;
ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.