Case ID: f-appx_193/html/0316-01.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. Gerald M. WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-30282.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
    Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    F.M. Carmody, Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin & Roberts, Shreveport, LA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Gerald M. White was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 12 months and a day in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. White’s supervised release was revoked, and he now appeals the two-year term of imprisonment imposed following that revocation.

White contends that the district court reversibly erred in imposing his revocation sentence. He argues that the circumstances of his case do not warrant the statutory maximum two-year term of imprisonment imposed in his case.

The two-year term of imprisonment imposed following revocation of White’s supervised release does exceed the sentencing range indicated by the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, but it does not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, White’s revocation sentence was 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). White has not shown reversible error.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.