* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-20614

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ROY THOMAS RAWLINSON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-71

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Thomas Rawlinson appeals the twenty-month sentence imposed by

the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. The district

court determined that Rawlinson’s advisory sentencing range was seven to

thirteen months of imprisonment, with a statutory maximum term of

imprisonment of twenty months. Rawlinson does not challenge these findings.

Instead, he contends that the district court’s decision to impose the statutory

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20614

2

maximum sentence is unreasonable and thatthe district court did not articulate

specific reasons for imposing the sentence.

Because Rawlinson did not object to his sentence or challenge the alleged

lack of reasons for the sentence imposed in the district court, we review for plain

error only. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir.

2008) (applying plain error review to unpreserved challenge to adequacy of

district court’s explanation of sentence), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2008)

(No. 08-5514). To establish plain error, Rawlinson must show (1) that there was

error, (2) that the error was clear or obvious, and (3) that the error affected his

substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). If

these factors are established, we will exercise our discretion to correct errors

that seriously affect the “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

When revoking a term of supervised release, a district court may impose

any sentence of imprisonment that falls within the maximum term allowed by

statute. See 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 ofthe Guidelines. United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87,

90 (5th Cir. 1994).

Although Rawlinson’s twenty-month sentence exceeds the Guidelines

range, it does not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the

district court could have imposed upon revocation of supervised release. See 18

U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court provided

adequate reasons for the imposition of Rawlinson’s sentence. The district court

stated that it considered the policy statements of Chapter Seven, the advisory

Guidelines, the circumstances of the case, and the court’s prior leniency toward

Rawlinson, who repeatedly violated conditions of his supervised release.
No. 07-20614

3

Rawlinson’s sentence is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable,

and he has not demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d

783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.