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

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10590 Su m m ar y C 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. R A F A E L R O D R IG U E Z , 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 t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 4 :05 -C R -2 2 -1
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R afaelR odri gu ez app eal s t h e sentences i m posed f ol l ow i n g t h e revocat i on o f h is s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e te r m s . H e co m p la in s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly consi dered the fact ors in 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3553 ( a) ( 2) (A) i n i m posi n g h i s s en t en ces. Rodr i gue z a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as pr e c l ude d f r o m c o ns i de r i ng t he § 355 3( a) ( 2) (A) fact ors becau se t h ey are not am on g t h ose t h at 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3583 ( e) di rect s c ou rt s t o w ei gh i n fash i on i n g a revocat i on sentence. H e does not al l ege, an d the recor d d oes n ot ref l ect , t h at t h e di st ri ct court, i n i m posi n g h i s r evocati on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 16, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10590 Document: 00511052512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010N o. 09- 10590

2 sentence, m ad e an y speci f i c r eference to § 355 3( a) ( 2) (A) or t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt di sc uss ed any of t he fac t or s se tf or t h i n § 35 53( a) ( 2) (A)
. H i s ar gum enti nst ead
r e s t s o n as t at e m e nti n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s w ri t t e n j udg m e nto f r e vo c at i o n a nd se n te n ce th a t th e co u rt h a dco n sid e re da llfac to rs se t for th in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e ha ve no ty e ta ddr e s s e d whet he ra di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayc o nsi der t he fa c t o r s i n § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) (A) wh e n i mp o s i n ga r e v o c a t i o n s e n t e n c e . Ho we v e r , we ne e d no tr e ach t he i s s ue i n t he i ns t antc as e . W he n s e nt e nc i ng Rodr i gue z , t he d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te dth a t ith a dim p o s e dw h a t itb e l i e v e d “ to b e a re a s o n a b le s e nt e nc e t hata deq u at e l y anda ppr o pr i at e l y ad dr e s s [ e d] a l lo f t he fac t o r s t he C ou rt i s t o consi der u n der § 355 3( a) of T i t l e 18. ” B y l i m i t i n g i t s c o n sid e ra t i on t o onl y t h ose fact ors i ti s t o consi der un der § 3553 ( a) , t h e di st ri ctcourti n di cat ed t hati tw as notc ons i der i ng t he § 3553( a) ( 2) (A) fac t or s. Th e di st r i c tcour t ’ s or al p r o n o u n c e m e n ta ts e n t e n c in gc o n t r o ls to th e e x t e n titc o n fl ic t s w it h th e c o u r t ’s w r itt e n ju d g m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mart i n ez , 250 F
. 3d 9 4 1 , 9 4 2 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). A c c o r d in g ly , R o d r ig u e z h a s n o t s h o w n e r r o r . R o d r ig u e z ’ s a r g u m e n t fa ils to e s ta b lis h th a t h is re v o c a tio n s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b l e o r p la in ly u n r e a s o n a b le
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hi n son , 4 2 9 F .3d 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-10590 Document: 00511052512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010