* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-20459

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RYAN ANTHONY BURRELL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-389-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ryan Anthony Burrell appeals the 21-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of his second term of supervised release. He argues that the sentence

is procedurally unreasonable because the district court imposed a sentence

outside the advisory guidelines range and failed to explain adequately the basis

for its deviation. He further argues that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 6, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20459

2

The district court may impose any sentence that falls within the maximum

term of imprisonment allowed by statute for the revocation sentence. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3). In doing so, the district court is to consider the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the advisory policy statements found in Chapter Seven

of the Guidelines. United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90 (5th Cir. 1994). The

statutory maximum term of imprisonment upon the revocation of Burrell’s first

term of supervised release in 2006 was two years. See § 3583(e)(3). Burrell

served three months in prison after the revocation of his first term of supervised

release. Thus, the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed

upon the revocation of his second term of supervised release was 21 months. See

United States v. Jackson, 329 F.3d 406, 407 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,

although the 21-month sentence imposed by the district court exceeded the

maximum advisory guideline range of three to nine months, it was not

unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d

425, 428 (5th Cir. 2008).

Burrell’s argumentthat the district court did not adequately articulate its

sentencing reasons also fails. The record reflects that the district court took into

account the nonbinding policy statements of Chapter 7 of the Sentencing

Guidelines as well as the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). See United

States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). The court determined that

a 21-month sentence was appropriate given Burrell’s pattern of non-compliant

behavior and demonstrable history of substance abuse. The inability of the

district court to insure that Burrell would be placed in a facility offering drug

treatment or that Burrell would receive treatment once he was imprisoned does

not render his sentence unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. §

3621; United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1993) (decision

whether a prisoner received treatment for substance abuse is left to the

discretion of the Bureau of Prisons). Thus, the judgment is AFFIRMED.