United States v. Norman , 81 F. App'x 497 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 26, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50347
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODGER DALE NORMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(No. W-01-CR-62-1)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Rodger Dale Norman pleaded guilty to theft
of government property. He was sentenced to five years of
probation and was ordered to pay restitution. Norman failed to
abide by the terms of his probation, and it was revoked. He was
sentenced to six months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and
three years of supervised release. His supervised release was
subsequently revoked for violations, and he was ordered to serve
120 days in community confinement. Another petition for violation
of supervised release was filed, and Norman pleaded true to four
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
violations of the conditions of his supervised release. The
district court sentenced him to two years of imprisonment. Norman
appeals from this sentence, arguing that it is plainly
unreasonable, and that the district court erred by failing to
articulate its reasons for imposition of the sentence or its
consideration of the applicable statutory factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), including the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the
sentencing guidelines.
The district court was fully familiar with Norman’s background
and conduct, and it specifically rejected the suggested guidelines
range in Chapter 7. Norman’s sentence was within the statutory
maximum and was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v.
Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93-94 (5th Cir. 1994). Under the applicable
standard of review (plain error) and the circumstances of this
case, we conclude that the district court’s alleged failure to
state the reasons for imposition of sentence or to articulate its
consideration of the relevant factors under § 3553 (including the
policy statements) was not plain error. See United States v.
Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930-31 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v.
Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2