* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51234

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHANTE DIBBLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-62-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chante Dibbles appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in

possession of ammunition. Although his advisory guidelines

imprisonment range was 77 to 96 months, the district court

sentenced Dibbles to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months

of imprisonment. The court found that Dibbles’s criminal record 

warranted an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. The court 

further found that a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) was

justified because of the nature and circumstances of Dibbles’s
No. 06-51234

-2-

** Dibbles did not raise this challenge to his sentence in

the district court. His argument may thus be subject to plainerror review rather than reasonableness review. See United

States v. Gonzalez-Zuniga, F.3d , No. 06-41030, 2007 WL

1289984 at *1 (5th Cir. May 2, 2007). This court need not decide

which standard applies, however, because Dibbles’s sentence was

proper under either standard. Id.

conduct and the history and characteristics of his past. The

sentence was thus based on both an upward departure from the

guidelines range and a non-guidelines sentence, or “variance”

from the guidelines. See United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d

713, 721 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W.

3585 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2007) (No. 06-1381); United States v. Smith,

440 F.3d 704, 706-07 (5th Cir. 2006). A non-guidelines sentence

is ultimately reviewed for unreasonableness.** Smith, 440 F.3d

at 706. An upward departure is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. Id. at 707. 

“Both a district court’s post-Booker sentencing discretion

and the reasonableness inquiry on appeal must be guided by the

sentencing considerations set forth in [] § 3553(a).” Id. at

706. These factors include the nature and circumstances of the

offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the

need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. 

§ 3553(a)(1), (2). A district court must also consider these

factors when imposing a sentence that represents an upward 

departure from the advisory guidelines range. United States v.

Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006). 
No. 06-51234

-3-

Dibbles argues that his sentence was unreasonable because

the district court failed to consider his mitigating

circumstances in imposing the sentence. He argues that

consideration of his mitigating circumstances was mandated under

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the court abused its discretion by

failing to account for them in either its oral or written reasons

for imposing the sentence. 

A district court must more thoroughly articulate its reasons

when it imposes a non-guidelines sentence than when it imposes a

sentence under the guidelines. Smith, 440 F.3d at 707. However,

a “checklist recitation” of the § 3553(a) factors is not

necessary for a sentence to be reasonable. Id. Dibbles has not

shown that the district court failed to consider a required

factor under § 3553(a). The district court’s sentence thus was

proper under either plain-error or reasonableness review.

AFFIRMED.