USA v. Daniel
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-10827 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES DAVID DANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:92-CR-98 -------------------Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant James David Daniel appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release, which had been imposed following his conviction of attempted possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Daniel contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not give adequate reasons for sentencing him above the advisory guidelines range. We need not decide the
appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
U.S. 220 (2005), because Daniel has not shown that his sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See United States v.
Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Although it is in excess of the recommended range,
Daniel's sentence is within the statutory maximum sentence that the district court could have imposed. Furthermore, a review of the
record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. (5th Cir. 2006). See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707
Daniel's sentence was neither unreasonable nor
plainly unreasonable. AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?