United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10821
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JARVIS A. COLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-72-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jarvis A. Cole appeals the 23-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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10821
-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 Cole 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). Cole was subject to a two-year
statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of his supervised
release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 513(a), 371, 3559(a)(4), and
3583(e)(3). The Sentencing Guidelines recommended a prison term
between 6 and 12 months based on Cole’s Grade C violations and
his criminal history category of IV. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
Cole’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Cir. Sept. 8, 2006) (unpublished).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.