Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tony Rydell CHATMON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 206 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 05-20750
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tony Rydell CHATMON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tony Rydell CHATMON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-20750.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 15, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tony Rydell Chatmon pleaded guilty to transporting an undocumented alien for private financial gain; he was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. Chatmon appeals the two-year term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his term of supervised release.
Chatmon argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable. Although the two-year term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of Chatmon's supervised release exceeded the sentencing range indicated by the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, it did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, Chatmon's revocation sentence was neither "unreasonable" nor "plainly unreasonable." See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Chatmon has not shown error.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.