Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Wayne ALBERT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-22
Citations: 186 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 05-30708
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Wayne ALBERT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 513–513

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Wayne ALBERT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30708
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2006.
William P. Gibbens, Nils Robert Kessler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roma A. Kent, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Albert appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the thirty-six month sentence subsequently imposed. We review for abuse of discretion and affirm for the following reason.
"[T] his court will uphold a sentence unless it is in violation of the law or plainly unreasonable." United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). To revoke a term of supervised release, a district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). As a Class B felon, Albert was susceptible to three years imprisonment for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Id. The preponderance standard was easily satisfied because Albert stipulated to the Grade C supervised release violations. In light of Albert's lengthy criminal history, this sentence is not 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.