Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Bernard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-04
Citations: 178 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 05-10788
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Bernard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Bernard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10788.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 4, 2006.
Paul E. Gartner, Jr., Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andre Bernard Davis appeals the sentence of 12 months imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Davis's sentence, which did not exceed the advisory range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, was not imposed in violation of law and was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable under the facts of this case. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. — , 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006).
We review Davis's contention that the district court erred by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir.2001). The district court stated on the record that a 12-month sentence was necessary for punishment and deterrence, and the sentence was not unlawful. Accordingly, there is no reversible plain error. See id. at 931.
For the foregoing reasons, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.