Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0803-01.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. Mauricio Joe HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-50630.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 3, 2004.
    Ellen A. Lockwood, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lucien B. Campbell, Federal Public Defender, Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mauricio Joe Hernandez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release, which stemmed from his 1994 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. (The revocation was based upon Hernandez’ drug use and withdrawal from a drug treatment facility against the advice of the staff.) Hernandez contends that the district court violated Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by fading to resolve a contested issue at sentencing: whether Hernandez would be eligible for intensive drug treatment in prison in the light of his former gang affiliation, which could require his segregation from the regular prison population.

The parties dispute: whether Fed. R.Crim. P. 32 required the district court to make a finding on the availability of drug treatment; and whether Hernandez preserved this issue by objecting at sentencing. We need not resolve these contentions; even deciding them in the light most favorable to Hernandez, the sentence was proper. The sentencing transcript reflects that the district court implicitly determined that this issue would not affect sentencing. Hernandez has not demonstrated that the court imposed a sentence in violation of law or that the sentence was plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir.2000).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.