Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Merlin W. WINTERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-07
Citations: 380 F. App'x 419
Docket Number: No. 09-60798
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Merlin W. WINTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 419–419

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Merlin W. WINTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-60798
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 7, 2010.
Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, Gerald Moses Abdalla, Jr., Samuel Lynn Murray, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John William Weber, III, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Merlin W. Winters appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district court as unreasonable. Winters's sole argument on appeal is that the sentence was unreasonable in light of Winters's need for treatment for drug addiction. As he did not preserve his objection to the sentence, however, we review for plain error. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir.2007). Finding none, we affirm.
The record demonstrated, and counsel argued, that Winters has a serious drug addiction. The court concluded that a lengthy period of incarceration would permit Winters to have access to the 500-hour drug rehabilitation program available through the Bureau of Prisons. The court was motivated by a desire to ensure that Winters had sufficient opportunity to overcome his addiction and return from prison a productive member of society. This was an appropriate factor to consider in assessing the sentence. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, the sentence was well below the statutory maximum of five years, which "strongly counsels against its being held reversible on plain error review." Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d at 274.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.