Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 04-10937
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles EUBANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10937.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Delonia Anita Watson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Eubanks has appealed the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. Eubanks contends that his rights to grand jury indictment and a jury trial were violated, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He complains that the total sentence imposed by the district court exceeded the sentence he could have received under the Sentencing Guidelines for the offense of conviction and that the additional sentence was imposed on the basis of facts found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence instead of by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. These issues are without merit. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116-19 (5th Cir.2005); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764. The sentence was not imposed in violation of law and was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable under the facts of this case. See Hinson, 429 F.3d at 119-20; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) & 3583(e)(3).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.