United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10755
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID REYNA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-20-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Reyna appeals his 24-month sentence following the
revocation of his supervised release. Reyna argues that the
district court’s departure from the recommended guidelines range
was unreasonable. He also contends that the district court
provided inadequate justification for the sentence imposed.
The sentence imposed, while in excess of the range
recommended by the guidelines, was within the statutory maximum
term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Reyna has not shown that his
24-month sentence was either unreasonable or plainly
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10755
-2-
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 did
consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
The district court noted that it was familiar with Reyna’s
background and inquired into the disposition of the subsequent
drug charge that primarily led to the revocation. The district
court also was concerned by Reyna’s return to criminal activity
within three months of his release to supervision. The district
court stated that it felt that Reyna’s recidivism showed a
disrespect for the law and that the recommended guidelines range
was inadequate to address his conduct. Thus, the record
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.