United States v. Larry Calloway , 442 F. App'x 142 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-50062     Document: 00511610108         Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/22/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 22, 2011
    No. 11-50062
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    LARRY CALLOWAY,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:08-CR-222-1
    Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Larry Calloway appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following
    revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence, which was
    above the recommended range, is plainly unreasonable because it is greater than
    necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
    We review sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release under
    the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 
    634 F.3d 841
    , 843
    (5th Cir. 2011). Calloway did not object in the district court. Therefore, we
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 11-50062      Document: 00511610108        Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/22/2011
    No. 11-50062
    review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d 256
    , 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 
    129 S. Ct. 1423
    ,
    1429 (2009).
    Because the 36-month sentence Calloway received on revocation was not
    greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States
    v. Pena, 
    125 F.3d 285
    , 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, this court has routinely
    upheld sentences on revocation greater than the advisory policy range but within
    the statutory maximum. See United States v. Milligan, 353 F. App’x 954 (5th
    Cir. 2009)(unpublished); United States v. Jones, 182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir.
    2006) (unpublished).1 Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Calloway’s 36-
    month sentence. See 
    Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429
    . Accordingly, the judgment of
    the district court is AFFIRMED.
    1
    Although these unpublished decisions are not precedent, we cite them as exemplars
    of sentences upheld by our court in the past.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-50062

Citation Numbers: 442 F. App'x 142

Judges: Garza, Haynes, Per Curiam, Southwick

Filed Date: 9/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023