Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0388-01.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. Eddie MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50481
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 6, 2010.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eddie Martinez challenges the sentence the district court imposed after revoking a previously imposed term of supervised release. Martinez argues that the 24-month sentence is plainly unreasonable because the sentence was supposed to be a penalty for his breach of trust in violating the conditions of his supervision, a breach which he asserts was relatively minor. He contends that a sentence between four and ten months of imprisonment, the Sentencing Guidelines range, would have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Because Martinez did not object to the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir.2007). While the 24-month sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range as properly calculated by the district court, the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Given the district court’s expressed concerns regarding Martinez’s history and characteristics, and its implicit consideration of other § 3553(a) factors as well, Martinez has not shown that the sentence constituted plain error. See Jones, 484 F.3d at 792-93; United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-92 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir.1996).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.