United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50701
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES TREVAUGHN BLAKEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CR-479-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Trevaughn Blakey pleaded guilty to two counts of bank
fraud and was sentenced to serve concurrent 36-month terms in
prison, followed by concurrent five-year terms of supervised
release. Blakey now appeals the district court’s imposition of two
consecutive 36-month prison terms following the revocation of his
supervised release. He asserts that the sentence was unreasonable
because it exceeded the advisory guideline range, because the
district court did not adequately consider mitigating factors
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50701
-2-
presented at the second revocation hearing, and because the court
overstated the seriousness of his nonviolent criminal conduct.
Blakey has not established that his sentence was imposed in
violation of law. The total 72-month term of imprisonment imposed
upon revocation of Blakey’s supervised release did not exceed the
statutory maximum term of imprisonment that the district court
could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v.
Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the
record reveals that the district court adequately considered the
relevant 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583 factors. Accordingly,
Blakey’s revocation sentence was neither “unreasonable” nor
“plainly unreasonable.” See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114,
120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).
Blakey also contends that the district court erred in imposing
the federal sentence to run consecutively to any not-yet-imposed
state sentence. We have held that such a sentence is proper under
18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, (p.s.). United States v.
Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other
grounds, United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.
2006). Therefore, Blakey’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment
of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.