Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 253 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: No. 07-10055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymundo SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10055
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 7, 2007.
Frederick M. Schattman, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymundo Sandoval appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release, arguing that his sentence was unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing Sandoval's sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). Sandoval's sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005).
Sandoval also argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it revoked his release and imposed an additional prison term based on facts found only by a preponderance of the evidence. Sandoval acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Hinson, 429 F.3d at 119, but raises it to preserve it for further review.
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.