Case ID: f-appx_239/html/0092-01.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. Eduardo Cosme COMPEAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-51062
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 4, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Robert Hardy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Cosme Compean appeals the sentence imposed following revocation of his probation for his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Compean argues that his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment exceeds the advisory guidelines range and is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a).

Compearis sentence of 60 months of imprisonment does not exceed the statutory term of imprisonment and is therefore a legal sentence. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997). Moreover, the district court is not limited to the advisory ranges available at the time of the initial sentence. See id. at 287.

The district court implicitly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a) when imposing Compearis sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). The district court concluded that Compean repeatedly violated the conditions of his probation despite receiving numerous opportunities for rehabilitation. Thus, the sentence is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable in light of the circumstances. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1083, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.