Case ID: f-appx_178/html/0405-01.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. Andre Bernard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10788.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 4, 2006.
    Paul E. Gartner, Jr., Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Andre Bernard Davis appeals the sentence of 12 months imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Davis’s sentence, which did not exceed the advisory range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, was not imposed in violation of law and was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable under the facts of this case. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. — , 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006).

We review Davis’s contention that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). The district court stated on the record that a 12-month sentence was necessary for punishment and deterrence, and the sentence was not unlawful. Accordingly, there is no reversible plain error. See id. at 931.

For the foregoing reasons, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.