Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10694 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. BRAD M I CHAEL EARDL EY , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 09- C R
- 48- 1 B ef ore D eM O S S , P R A D O , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * B ra dM ich a e l E a rd leyw a s c o n v ict e d o f be in gafelo n inp o ss e ss ion of a fir e a r m . S ee18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . Af t er se rv i n g a 60- m ont h se nt enc e o n t hat c o nvi c t i o n, Ear dl e y w as r e l e as e d t o s upe rvi s i o n, but he vi o l at e d t he c o ndit i o ns of rel ease. Th e di st ri ctcourtr e vo ke d Ear dl e y’ s s upervi sed rel ease an d sen t en ced hi m t o 1 8 m o nt hs of im pri s o nm e nt , w hi c h was w i t hi n t he a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne r a n g e o f 1 2 to 1 8 m o n th s . S eeU .S . S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 7 B 1 .4 (pol i cy st atem en t) . A s r ecom m en ded by th e G u i del i n es, t h e di st ri ctcourt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April27, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10694 Document: 00511092885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2010N o. 09- 10694

2 o r d e r e dth a tth e 1 8 -m o n t h r e v o c a t io n s e n t e n c e r u n c o n s e c u t iv e lyto E a r d le y ’s u n d is c h a r g e ds ta te s e n te n c e fo rp o s s e s s io n o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e . I d. § 7 B 1 .3(f) (p o lic ys ta te m e n t) . E a r d le yn o w ch a lle n g e s th e co n s e c u tiv e n a tu r e o f h is r e v o c a tio n s e n te n c e . H e a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic tc o u r ta c te du n r e a s o n a b lyin choosi n g t o run hi s r evocati on sentence consecutivel y t o h i s st ate j ai lsentence a n dinre ly in go n th e fa c to r s in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 )(A) in d o in gs o . The fac t o r s i n § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) (A) a r e no te xc l ude d f r o m 18 U . S. C. § 3 58 4, t he s t at ut o r y pr o vi s i o n app l i cabl e t o adi s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n whet he rt o r un a sentence consecutivel y t o or concu rrently w i t h an ot h er un di schargedsentence. S ee§ 3584 (b) . E ardl ey’ s r el i an ce on § 3583 ( e) i s m i spla ce d . T h a t provi si on ap pl i es t o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on s w h et h er t o i m pose a revocat i on sentence an d th e l engt h of

t hats ent enc e, nott o w het hert he s ent enc e s houl d be c o n s e c u tiv e to a nu n d is c h a r g e ds ta te s e n te n c e . S ee§ § 3 5 8 3 (e ), 3 5 8 4 (a )-(b ). T h e conse cu t ive n ature of E ardl ey’ s r evocati on sentence i s entit l ed to a r e b u tt a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See Un i t ed S t ates v. L opez- V elasqu ez , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 0 4 , 8 0 9 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 6 2 5 (2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ca n d ia , 454 F. 3d 468, 471 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) . Eardl ey has no tpr ovi ded a fac t ual bas i s for h i s ar gum entt hathe has r ebut t ed thatpr es um pt i on by sho w i ng a sentenci n g di spari t y. N or has h e s h ow n t h at th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r el i an ce on § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) (A) fac t o r s w as i m pe r m i s s ibl e orunr e as o nab l e . H e a l s o pr o vi de s no l eg a lba sis for h i s ar gu m en t th a t th e rev oca ti on s en ten ce con fli cts w i th th e sta te j u dg m en tof

convi ct i on becau se t h e lat t er m u stru n concurrentl y w i t h an y ot h er sentence. Th u s, E ardl ey h as no t r e b u t t ed the presum pti on of reasonab l en ess. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. Coo ks , 5 8 9 F .3 d1 7 3 , 1 8 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . den i ed , - - S. C t . - - , 201 0 W L 637 943 (M ar. 22, 201 0) . E ardl ey’ s s en t en ce passes m u st er un der ei t h er th e un reasona bl e or pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e st an da rd an d w as not i m posed in v io la tio n o f la w . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hi n son , 429 F . 3d114 , 120 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D . Case: 09-10694 Document: 00511092885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2010