United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 21, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30988
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OCIE LEE PICKENS, JR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-20007-10
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ocie Lee Pickens, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
imposition of a 36-month sentence of imprisonment following the
revocation of Pickens’s supervised release. Pickens contends
that the sentence is plainly unreasonable under all the
circumstances. He notes that his violations consist solely of
Grade C violations, and that the range of imprisonment
recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines is seven to thirteen
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30988
-2-
months. He contends that his conduct on supervised release took
a downward turn when he returned to Oakdale, Louisiana at the
insistence of his probation officer.
Pickens’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable given that
it fell within the statutory maximum and was based on the
district court’s determination that Pickens is in need of
comprehensive drug rehabilitation during incarceration.
See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 286, 288 (5th Cir. 1997)
(upholding 24-month sentence for Grade C violations, where
imprisonment range under the Sentencing Guidelines was three to
nine months). The district court’s consideration of Pickens’s
need for drug rehabilitation during incarceration also falls
within 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), which requires the district
court to consider the need for “medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” Further,
by taking into account the needs of the people of Oakdale, and
the young people in Pickens’s family, the district court also
properly considered the need to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
Because Pickens has failed to show that the sentence imposed
is plainly unreasonable, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.