Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60798/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60798-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Merlin W. Winters
Appellant

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60798

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MERLIN W. WINTERS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:08-CR-60-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Merlin W. Winters appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district

court as unreasonable. Winters’s sole argument on appeal is that the sentence

was unreasonable in light of Winters’s need for treatment for drug addiction. As

he did not preserve his objection to the sentence, however, we review for plain

error. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir.

2007). Finding none, we affirm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 7, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-60798 Document: 00511134047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010
No. 09-60798

2

The record demonstrated, and counsel argued, that Winters has a serious

drug addiction. The court concluded that a lengthy period of incarceration would

permit Winters to have access to the 500-hour drug rehabilitation program

available through the Bureau of Prisons. The court was motivated by a desire

to ensure that Winters had sufficient opportunity to overcome his addiction and

return from prison a productive member of society. This was an appropriate

factor to consider in assessing the sentence. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d

285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, the sentence was well

below the statutory maximum of five years, which “strongly counsels against its

being held reversible on plain error review.” Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d at

274.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-60798 Document: 00511134047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010