United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 15, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50597
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
STEVE LEAMBROSE HAYWARD
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CR-83-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stevie Leambrose Hayward appeals his 24-month sentence
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.
Hayward contends that the district court’s decision to upwardly
depart from the applicable guidelines range of 8 to 14 months and
the extent of the departure were unreasonable. Hayward also
contends that the district court provided inadequate
justification for imposing a sentence outside the recommended
guidelines range and that his sentence was therefore
unreasonable.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50597
-2-
The sentence imposed in Hayward’s case, while in excess of
the range indicated by the policy statement, was within the
statutory maximum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3). Hayward has not shown that his 24-month sentence was
either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. See United States
v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).
Further, the record demonstrates that the district court
considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
The district court reviewed the allegations against Hayward,
heard the factual basis for Hayward’s violations of supervised
release, and was aware that Hayward had continued to commit
credit card fraud while on supervised release. The nature and
circumstances of Hayward’s offenses; his criminal history and
characteristics; and the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offenses, to promote respect for the law, and
to protect the public from further crimes by Hayward are all
factors a court must consider under § 3553(a). The record thus
demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant
sentencing factors and articulated sufficient reasons to support
the sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
AFFIRMED.