Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James David DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-29
Citations: 223 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 05-10827
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James David DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 434–434

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James David DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10827
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 29, 2007.
Frederick M. Schattman, Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, 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 SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant James David Daniel appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release, which had been imposed following his conviction of attempted possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.
Daniel contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not give adequate reasons for sentencing him above the advisory guidelines range. We need not decide the appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because Daniel has not shown that his sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Although it is in excess of the recommended range, Daniel's sentence is within the statutory maximum sentence that the district court could have imposed. Furthermore, a review of the record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006). Daniel's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.