Case ID: f-appx_215/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Jerome ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30588
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 26, 2007.
    Gregory M. Kennedy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roma A. Kent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerome Roberts appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3588(g). He argues that the district court erred in not imposing substance-abuse treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) in lieu of incarceration. Roberts committed several violations of the conditions of his supervised release. Failure of a drug test was but one of those violations. Moreover, the district court considered but rejected the available treatment options. See § 3583(d). Accordingly, there was no error in the district court’s revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment. Roberts’ 24-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). His revocation sentence was therefore neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.