United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10786
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MICHAEL DOUGLAS JACKSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-46-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Douglas Jackson appeals the sentence imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends
that after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are
reviewed under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues
that the sentence was unreasonable because it substantially
exceeded the recommended range and the district court’s reasons
for imposing the sentence were insufficient.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10786
-2-
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 Jackson 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). The district court
sentenced Jackson to concurrent terms of 36 months of
imprisonment on Counts Two and Three and a consecutive term of 24
months of imprisonment on Count One, for a total of 60 months of
imprisonment. Jackson’s sentence, while in excess of the
recommended guidelines range, was within the statutory maximum
sentence that the district court could have imposed. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344, 3559(a)(2) & (4), and 3583(e)(3); United
States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001);
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Further, a review of the record reflects
that the district court considered the nature and circumstances
of the violations, Jackson’s history and characteristics, the
need to deter Jackson from further criminal conduct, and the need
to protect the public from any further crimes by Jackson. The
sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.