Case ID: f-appx_268/html/0276-01.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. Julio Cesar DONJUAN-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41039
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 29, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard N. Jeffrey, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Donjuan-Gonzalez (Don-juán) filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he designated only case number 2:06-CR-88-l. We liberally construe the notice to include case number 2:03-CR-348-2, which concerns the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, and in which a judgment was rendered at the same hearing at which the sentence was imposed in case number 2:06-CR-88-l. See Trust Co. Bank v. United States Gypsum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1148 (5th Cir.1992).

Donjuán argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in failing to give oral or written reasons for sentencing him above the advisory guideline range for the revocation of his supervised release and for failing to consider the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements concerning the advisory guideline range. Because the district court stated that it had considered both the guideline policy statements and Donjuan’s multiple supervised release law violations and because the record indicates that the district court considered the appropriate advisory guideline range, the district court did not commit plain error in sentencing Donjuán. See United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 441 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir.1992).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.