Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amanda Celina BERMEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-12
Citations: 360 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 09-50345
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amanda Celina BERMEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Amanda Celina BERMEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50345
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 12, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amanda Celina Bermea appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release for failing to submit to drug testing, failing to attend drug counseling, and failing to report to her probation officer. Bermea argues that her sentence, which was above the guidelines range, is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Because Bermea did not object to the reasonableness of her sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir.2009). The 30-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment authorized upon revocation of supervised release. Bermea has therefore not shown plain error with regard to the reasonableness of her sentence. See id. at 265.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.