Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee MORELAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 421 F. App'x 360
Docket Number: No. 10-50734
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee MORELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee MORELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50734
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 5, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Moreland appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release subsequent to his convictions for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. More-land argues that his 24-month sentence, which was outside of the recommended guidelines range, was unreasonable. Moreland did not object to his sentence. Accordingly, we review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).
Because the 24-month sentence More-land received on revocation was less than the term authorized by statute, it is "clearly legal." United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1997). Moreover, this court has "routinely upheld release revocation sentences in excess of the advisory range but within the statutory maximum" as satisfying both the plainly unreasonable and unreasonableness standards. United States v. Jones, 182 Fed.Appx. 343, 344 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); see United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir.2008).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.