United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10827
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES DAVID DANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:92-CR-98
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant James David Daniel appeals the district
court’s revocation of his supervised release, which had been
imposed following his conviction of attempted possession of a
listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.
Daniel contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the
district court did not give adequate reasons for sentencing him
above the advisory guidelines range. We need not decide the
appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed on revocation
of supervised release in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
U.S. 220 (2005), because Daniel 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). Although it is in excess of the recommended range,
Daniel’s sentence is within the statutory maximum sentence that the
district court could have imposed. Furthermore, 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). Daniel’s sentence was neither unreasonable nor
plainly unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
2