DocketNumber: 09-50481
Judges: Garza, Clement, Owen
Filed Date: 5/6/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
Case: 09-50481 Document: 00511102549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 6, 2010 No. 09-50481 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDDIE MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2699-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eddie Martinez challenges the sentence the district court imposed after revoking a previously imposed term of supervised release. Martinez argues that the 24-month sentence is plainly unreasonable because the sentence was supposed to be a penalty for his breach of trust in violating the conditions of his supervision, a breach which he asserts was relatively minor. He contends that a sentence between four and ten months of imprisonment, the Sentencing * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-50481 Document: 00511102549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2010 No. 09-50481 Guidelines range, would have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Martinez did not object to the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones,484 F.3d 783
, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). While the 24-month sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range as properly calculated by the district court, the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Given the district court’s expressed concerns regarding Martinez’s history and characteristics, and its implicit consideration of other § 3553(a) factors as well, Martinez has not shown that the sentence constituted plain error. SeeJones, 484 F.3d at 792-93
; United States v. Smith,417 F.3d 483
, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Teran,98 F.3d 831
, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED. 2