Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Laquince THOMAS, also known as LaQuince De-France Thomas, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 323 F. App'x 367
Docket Number: No. 08-50816
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Laquince THOMAS, also known as LaQuince De-France Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 367–367

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Laquince THOMAS, also known as LaQuince De-France Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50816
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 30, 2009.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal, Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Laquince Thomas appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the sentence, which was the maximum allowed by statute and was above the suggested range set forth by the Sentencing Guidelines, was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Thomas's sentence will be affirmed if it is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005).
In less than 18 months of supervised release, Thomas had multiple positive drug tests, failed two attempts at drug rehabilitation, and was arrested on three occasions. During his latest arrest, officers had to use a taser and pepper spray to bring him under control. In addition, the district court appropriately focused on Thomas's unabated drug addiction and the ineffectiveness of non-prison sanctions in treating that addiction. The sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.