Case ID: f-appx_283/html/0297-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Encarnacion CASTILLO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-11045
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 27, 2008.
    
      Christy Lee Drake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bonita L. Gunden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Encarnación Castillo, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing the statutory maximum sentence, thereby rendering his sentence unreasonable.

Because Castillo did not object to his sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 805-06 (5th Cir.2008). The district court considered the policy statements of Chapter 7 and determined that the facts of the instant case warranted a sentence above the recommended range. Castillo’s probation officer testified for sentencing purposes, revealing that Castillo tested positive for cocaine on one occasion and did not submit a urine specimen on another occasion. Castillo has not shown that his revocation sentence is unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005). Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in imposing Castillo’s sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.