United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 31, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-10954 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANANIAS DEMETRIUS NICKERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
No. 3:99-CR-112-6
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ananias Nickerson pleaded guilty of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base; he was sentenced to 27 months of imprison-
ment and five years of supervised release. He appeals the three-
year term of imprisonment imposed following the revocation of his
term of supervised release.
Nickerson argues that the district court erred by refusing to
hold his revocation hearing within a reasonable time under FED. R.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-10954
-2-
CRIM. P. 32.1. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is not
applicable to revocation hearings. See United States v. Tippens,
39 F.3d 88, 89-90 (5th Cir. 1994). The right to a revocation hear-
ing accrues once the warrant has been executed and the defendant
has been taken into federal custody. Id. Nevertheless, due pro-
cess rights may be impeded by a delay in the execution of a warrant
“if the delay undermines [defendant’s] ability to contest the issue
of the violation or to proffer mitigating evidence.” Id. The rec-
ord does not reflect that Nickerson suffered any specific prejudice
from the delay in executing the warrant. Moreover, the two-month
delay between the execution of the warrant and the revocation hear-
ing was not unreasonable.
Nickerson argues that the sentence is unreasonable. Although
the three-year term of imprisonment imposed on revocation of super-
vised release exceeded the sentencing range indicated by the policy
statements in chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines, it did not
exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment the district
court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). According-
ly, Nickerson’s revocation sentence 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).
AFFIRMED.