United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50518
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTTY J. NOBLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-265-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Scotty J. Nobles was sentenced to a 21-month term of
imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture counterfeit
federal reserve notes. After Nobles was released to his term of
supervision, he pleaded guilty to a petition charging that he had
violated the terms of his supervised release by testing positive
for controlled substances on three occasions. The district court
sentenced him to a 24-month term of imprisonment.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50518
-2-
Nobles argues that his sentence is plainly unreasonable
because the district court ignored Nobles’s willingness to
participate in drug treatment at his own expense, if he were
allowed to continue on supervised release. Nobles contends that
the circumstances of his case do not warrant the 24-month
statutory maximum sentence imposed by the district court.
Although the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of
Nobles’s supervised release exceeded the sentencing range
indicated by the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, it did not exceed the statutory
maximum term of imprisonment that the district court could have
imposed, and was thus within the authority of the district court.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Nobles cannot demonstrate that his
sentence on revocation is error. See United States v. Hinson,
429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804
(2006).
AFFIRMED.