USA v. Colvin

Filing 920060921

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11098 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER KEITH COLVIN, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-381-ALL -------------------Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Christopher Keith Colvin appeals the sentence imposed

following the revocation of his supervised release following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For

the first time on appeal, he argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence outside the guidelines sentence range without explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He maintains that explicit reference to the

sentencing factors enumerated in § 3553(a) was required by this court in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

No. 05-11098 -2cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). applicable revocation to of this case because release He asserts that Mares is imposed be upon the for

sentences should

supervised

reviewed

reasonableness following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because Colvin did not raise this issue below, we review See United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086,

for plain error.

1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1992). Assuming arguendo that the Booker reasonableness standard applies to sentences imposed following the revocation of supervised release, the district court was still not required to "engage in robotic incantations that each statutory factor [had] been

considered."

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. The district court gave it imposed that was

2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). a fact-specific reason for the

sentence

consistent with the sentencing factors contained in § 3553(a), and this was sufficient. See id. Accordingly, the district court did

not commit error, plain or otherwise, by not explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). To the extent that Colvin argues that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unreasonable, he has failed to properly brief the issue and, therefore, waived it. See Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 181 n.3 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED.