IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31136
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER J. ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-30012-ALL
--------------------
August 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher J. Robinson appeals the revocation of his
supervised release. Robinson argues that the district court
imposed an illegal sentence when it revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to be incarcerated for 18 months with a
recommendation that he be provided with drug rehabilitation.
The revocation of Robinson’s supervised release was
mandatory once the district court found that Robinson had been in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31136
-2-
possession of cocaine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3565(b), 3583(g); United
States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1097 (5th Cir. 1994). This
court upholds a sentence after revocation of supervised release
unless the sentence violated a law or is plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d 719, 720 (5th Cir. 2001).
Because Robinson’s offense carries a maximum prison term of
five years, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(D), 846, Robinson was
subject to a maximum prison term of two years following the
revocation of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3559(a)(4). Robinson’s 18-month sentence was not in violation
of law because it was within the statutory maximum. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Neither was the 18-month sentence with the recommendation
that he be given intensive drug treatment “plainly unreasonable.”
Considering Robinson’s history of drug abuse and his violations
of the conditions of his supervised release, it was reasonable
for the court to determine, at the time of revocation, that
Robinson required intensive drug treatment. Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.