Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Ray HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-15
Citations: 179 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 05-30548
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Ray HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 233–233

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Ray HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30548
Summaiy Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 15, 2006.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephanie A. Finley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Ray Howard pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Howard was sentenced to an 84-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. Howard gave timely notice of his appeal.
Howard contends that the district court's sentence was not reasonable because it was two times longer than the maximum sentence under the advisory guideline range and because it is not supported by the district court's stated reasons. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), appellate courts ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir.2006). The district court's reasons for imposing a non-Guideline sentence did not fail to account for a significant factor or give significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor. See id. at 708. The sentence did not represent a "clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors." See id. Accordingly, the judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.