Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 04-50238
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-50238.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Robert Hardy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vincent Dennis Callahan, III, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In 1997, Jason Hernandez pleaded guilty of conspiring to distribute cocaine and of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it. He was sentenced to two concurrent 77-month terms of imprisonment, to be followed by two concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. Hernandez now appeals the two consecutive two-year terms of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his terms of supervised release.
For the first time on appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court erred in ordering that his revocation sentence run consecutively to any subsequent sentences that Hernandez might receive arising out of a state prosecution for intoxication assault or due to perjury charges filed as a result of his testimony at the revocation hearing. Hernandez has cited no relevant authority to support his argument as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). He has not shown that the district court committed plain error in imposing his sentence. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.