Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-15
Citations: 194 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 05-20225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-20225
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 15, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adalberto Rivera was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine; he was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and a ten-year term of supervised release. He appeals the two-year term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.
Although that two-year term exceeded the sentencing range indicated by the policy statements in chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, it did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, Rivera's revocation sentence was neither "unreasonable" nor "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). Rivera has not shown error.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.