United States v. Pickrell , 110 F. App'x 459 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10349
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES PICKRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-52-ALL-A
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Pickrell appeals the 24-month sentence he received
following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues
that the sentence, in combination with his original 48-month
sentence, exceeds the 60-month statutory maximum for his
underlying 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) offense. He further urges that the
sentence following revocation was based on facts not determined
by a jury or admitted by him and thus violates Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10349
-2-
Pickrell’s claim fails. On its face, Blakely has no
application to supervised-release proceedings. Id. at 2537-43;
see United States v. Marmalejo, 915 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.
1990). The case does not present a sentencing guidelines issue
and, even if it did, this court has held that Blakely does not
apply to the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A,
¶ 1; United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.
2004), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 14, 2004)
(No. 04-5263). Finally, contrary to his assertion, Pickrell’s
sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3559(a)(4), § 3583(b)(2) and (e)(3); United States v.
Celestine, 905 F.2d 59, 60-61 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.