United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-30577 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 1:03-CR-10009-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andre Bennett appeals the sentence that resulted from the re-
vocation of the supervised release imposed following his conviction
of distribution of cocaine base. Bennett asserts that the sentence
is above the advisory sentencing guidelines range and is plainly
unreasonable.
Since United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we have
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-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.
yet to determine whether sentences imposed following the revocation
of supervised release should be reviewed under the plainly unrea-
sonable standard previously applicable or the unreasonableness
standard set forth in Booker, and we need not do so in this case,
because the sentence passes muster under either standard. See
United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005). The
sentencing guidelines pertaining to supervised release revocations
have always been advisory, and the sentence is less than the statu-
tory maximum. See id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Bennett’s most
serious supervised release violation was a drug offense involving
more than 400 grams of cocaine and 600 grams of cocaine base. The
original sentence was the result of a downward departure from the
applicable guideline range, a factor that can warrant an upward de-
parture under the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment.
(n.4). The sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unrea-
sonable. See Hinson, 429 F.3d at 120.
AFFIRMED.