United States v. Rodriquez ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 22, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11293
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN RODRIQUEZ,
also known as Juan Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:94-CR-24-ALL-C
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Rodriquez was convicted following a guilty plea of
being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to
35 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term
of supervised release. After his term of supervised release
commenced, Rodriquez violated the conditions of his release,
and he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment following the
revocation of his supervised release.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-11293
-2-
Rodriquez appeals from this sentence, arguing that it is
plainly unreasonable and that the district court erred by failing
to articulate its reasons for imposition of the sentence or its
consideration of the applicable statutory factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), including the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the
sentencing guidelines.
Rodriquez’s sentence was within the statutory maximum and
was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Mathena,
23 F.3d 87, 93-94 (5th Cir. 1994). Prior to sentencing, the
district court was provided with an explanation of Rodriquez’s
violations, the Supervised Release Violation Report, stating the
sentencing options and updating Rodriquez’s personal history, and
the argument of defense counsel. “Absent a contrary indication
in the record, such evidence implies that the district court was
aware of and considered the § 3553(a) factors.” United States
v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 440-42 (5th Cir. 2000). The
district court implicitly considered the necessary factors and,
thus, its failure to state its reasons was not plain error. See
United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930-31 (5th Cir. 2001);
Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d at 441-42.
AFFIRMED.