USA v. Myles
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51357 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. WILLIE DAVID MYLES Defendant - Appellant -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:96-CR-211-1 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Willie David Myles appeals the sentences imposed following the revocation of his supervised release terms following his convictions for distribution of cocaine. He argues that the
district court erred by imposing a sentence outside the guidelines sentence range and that the district court erred in not explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-51357 -2to determine whether it violated the law or was plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925 Also before Booker, if, like Myles, a defendant
(5th Cir. 2001).
argued that the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors for the first time on appeal, we reviewed that issue for plain error. See United States v. Vonsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091, After Booker, it is unclear whether the
1093 (5th Cir. 1992).
same standards apply or if we instead review a revocation sentence only for "unreasonableness". United States v. Hinson,
429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Similar to Hinson, we need not decide the standard-of-
review issues presented by this appeal because Myles's sentences are proper under any standard. Id.
The 21-month terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of Myles's supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum terms of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Moreover, the 21-month
sentences were within the guidelines range recommended by U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court had the authority and
discretion to impose consecutive sentences upon revocation of Myles's concurrent terms of supervised release. See United
States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court explicitly stated that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public would not be served if Myles continued on supervised release. Moreover, because the
No. 05-51357 -3sentences imposed upon revocation of the supervised release terms were within the applicable advisory guidelines ranges, it is inferred that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Accordingly, because Myles has not shown error with
respect to his sentences, the judgment of the district court is 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?