United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 25, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
)))))))))))))))))))))))))) Clerk
No. 05-30665
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
DEMORRIS JONES,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana
U.S.D.C. No. 5:03-cr-50112-05
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Demorris Jones pleaded guilty to conspiring to
defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Applying a downward departure, the district court sentenced him
to six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised
release and ordered restitution.
After Jones began his supervised release, the U.S. Probation
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIRCUIT
RULE 47.5.4.
Office submitted a petition detailing three Grade C release
violations: (1) failure to submit timely monthly reports; (2)
failure to notify the probation office of change of address; and
(3) failure to make restitution payment. For such violations,
the Sentencing Guidelines call for a term of imprisonment of five
to eleven months, if, like Jones, the violator falls into
criminal history category III.1 The district court held a
revocation hearing, at which Jones admitted committing the
violations. After considering the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, Jones’ criminal history and the record, the district
court imposed twenty-four months of incarceration, the statutory
maximum for the underlying offense.
Jones appeals the sentence’s imposition as erroneous because
it exceeds the Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory range. This court
has declined to define precisely the standard of review to be
applied to sentences imposed when supervised release is revoked,
United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), and
we need not do so today. We have routinely upheld release
revocation sentences in excess of the advisory range but within
the statutory maximum as meeting both standards considered in
Hinson.2 See, e.g., id.; U.S. v. Boykin, No. 05-50704, 2006 WL
1
U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 7B1.4(2006)(hereinafter
“Sentencing Guidelines”).
2
Hinson considered two standards, (1) the “plainly
unreasonable” standard in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), applied to
revocation sentences before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
2
616031 at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2006); U.S. v. Green, 162 F.App’x
283, 284 (5th Cir. 2006). Jones makes no compelling argument
distinguishing his case. The district court considered the
Sentencing Guidelines’ range, Jones’ criminal history and the
record in choosing its sentence. The twenty-four month sentence
it imposed on revocation here is reasonable and accordingly
neither "unreasonable" nor "plainly unreasonable." We find no
reversible error in its means or ends, and so the sentence is
AFFIRMED.
(2005), and (2) Booker’s “unreasonableness” standard.
3