United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51357
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WILLIE DAVID MYLES
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:96-CR-211-1
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie David Myles appeals the sentences imposed following
the revocation of his supervised release terms following his
convictions for distribution of cocaine. He argues that the
district court erred by imposing a sentence outside the
guidelines sentence range and that the district court erred in
not explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51357
-2-
to determine whether it violated the law or was plainly
unreasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925
(5th Cir. 2001). Also before Booker, if, like Myles, a defendant
argued that the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a)
factors for the first time on appeal, we reviewed that issue for
plain error. See United States v. Vonsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091,
1093 (5th Cir. 1992). After Booker, it is unclear whether the
same standards apply or if we instead review a revocation
sentence only for “unreasonableness”. United States v. Hinson,
429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804
(2006). Similar to Hinson, we need not decide the standard-of-
review issues presented by this appeal because Myles’s sentences
are proper under any standard. Id.
The 21-month terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation
of Myles’s supervised release did not exceed the statutory
maximum terms of imprisonment that the district court could have
imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Moreover, the 21-month
sentences were within the guidelines range recommended by
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court had the authority and
discretion to impose consecutive sentences upon revocation of
Myles’s concurrent terms of supervised release. See United
States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001).
The district court explicitly stated that the ends of
justice and the best interest of the public would not be served
if Myles continued on supervised release. Moreover, because the
No. 05-51357
-3-
sentences imposed upon revocation of the supervised release terms
were within the applicable advisory guidelines ranges, it is
inferred that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a)
factors. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because Myles has not shown error with
respect to his sentences, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.