United States v. Manuel , 224 F. App'x 416 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 12, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10910
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD A. MANUEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-24-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court revoked Richard A. Manuel’s supervised
release, and he was sentenced to serve 23 months in prison and
36 months on supervised release. Manuel appeals his sentence.
He argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it exceeded
the advisory guideline range and because the district court
failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence. He
requests that this court vacate his sentence and remand the case
for resentencing.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10910
-2-
We have yet to decide whether revocation sentences imposed
following the release of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard or
the plainly unreasonable standard. See United States v. Hinson,
429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804
(2006). Nevertheless, resolution of this issue is not needed to
dispose of this appeal because Manuel has not shown that he
should prevail under either standard. See id. Manuel’s sentence
exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence but not the
pertinent statutory maximum sentence. Further, a review of the
record demonstrates that the district court considered the
relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith, 440
F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the sentence was
neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable, and the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.