United States v. Lee , 221 F. App'x 337 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 6, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10807
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY S. LEE,
Defendant-
Appellant.
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-15-ALL
------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy S. Lee appeals from the sentence imposed following revocation of his term of
supervised release. Lee argues that his 23-month sentence is unreasonable because it is higher than
the advisory guidelines sentencing range and because there has been no allegation that he engaged
in additional criminal activity. Lee contends that the district court did not provide an adequate
explanation for its departure from the advisory sentencing range.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal or for summary affirmance on the ground
that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). Because Lee
cannot prevail on the merits of his appeal, we pretermit consideration of the jurisdictional 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 appellate brief is denied as unnecessary.
The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing Lee’s
sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). The sentence is neither
unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED;
ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
-2-