United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10658
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD FURLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-45-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Furlow was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea on
three counts of fraud-related offenses. He was sentenced to
three concurrent terms of imprisonment of 51 months, to be
followed by three concurrent three-year terms of supervised
release. Furlow now appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court upon revocation of his supervised release. Furlow argues
that, in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
the district court erred in imposing an unreasonable sentence of
imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10658
-2-
Furlow argues that the district court failed to consider the
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as required by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). However, Furlow admitted to the court that he was an
addict and that he had mental health issues, and defense counsel
requested a term of imprisonment so that Furlow could complete
the prison drug treatment program. Moreover, Furlow began
abusing drugs shortly after being released to supervision, and he
admitted that his attempts at self-treatment of his mental health
issues had been unsuccessful. See § 3553(a)(1) & (2)(D).
The sentence imposed upon revocation of Furlow’s supervised
release did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment
that the district court could have imposed. See § 3583(e)(3).
Furthermore, the district court noted in its written order that
it had considered all of the factors set forth in § 3553(a) in
determining Furlow’s sentence. In light of Furlow’s admissions
at the revocation hearing and defense counsel’s agreement that
Furlow needed help, the sentence imposed by the district court
was neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” See
United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). The judgment of the district
court is therefore AFFIRMED.