United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60263
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRIC LAMOND BARBER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CR-103-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:*
Cedric Lamond Barber appeals the district court’s revocation
of his supervised release imposed following his conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
Barber argues that under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471
(1972), the district court violated his due process rights when
it denied his motions for continuances and when it shifted to the
defense the burden of providing a noncriminal explanation of a
factor that it used in sentencing him. However, Barber waived
Morrissey’s procedural due process safeguards when he admitted
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60263
-2-
that he had committed the violation on which the revocation of
his supervised release was based. See United States v. Holland,
850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barber’s
motions for continuance and did not improperly shift to Barber
the burden of proof of a factor used in sentencing him. See
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005); United
States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999).
Barber argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the
district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. This court need not decide
the appropriate standard of review for a sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release in the wake of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because Barber 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). Barber’s sentence, while
in excess of the recommended range, was 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).
Therefore, Barber’s sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.