United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 8, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10731
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL E. SHERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-269-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael E. Sherman appeals the 24-month sentence imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends
that pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
and United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), sentences, including those
imposed upon revocation of supervised release, are reviewed
under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues that the
sentence imposed was unreasonable because it substantially
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10731
-2-
exceeded the recommended range and the district court’s reasons
for imposing the sentence were insufficient.
This court need not decide the appropriate standard of
review for a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release in the wake of Booker because Sherman has not shown that
his sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable.
See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006); United States v. Jones,
182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006). Sherman was subject to a
two-year statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of his
supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2),
3559(a)(3), and 3583(e)(3). The Sentencing Guidelines
recommended a prison term of between 5 and 11 months based on
Sherman’s Grade C violations and his criminal history category of
III. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Sherman’s sentence, while in
excess of the recommended range, was within the statutory maximum
sentence that the district court could have imposed. Further, a
review of the record demonstrates that the district court
considered the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v.
Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Weese,
No. 05-41366, 2006 WL 2590309 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2006)
(unpublished). Therefore, the sentence was neither unreasonable
nor plainly unreasonable. See Jones, 182 F. App’x at 344.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.