IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
No. 07-50062 September 24, 2007
Summary Calendar
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
PEDRO ANTHONY RUIZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CR-573-ALL
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Anthony Ruiz appeals the consecutive sentences imposed upon
revocation of his supervised release terms, following his convictions for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and by a person with a misdemeanor
domestic-violence conviction. He claims: the district court erred by imposing
consecutive sentences that totaled 28 months’ imprisonment; and the district
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-50062
court did not properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a).
Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentence imposed
upon revocation of supervised release was reviewed to determine whether it
violated the law or was plainly unreasonable. United States v. Gonzalez, 250
F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 2001). Since Booker, our court has not decided whether
the same standard applies or if a revocation sentence is reviewed only for
“unreasonableness” vel non. United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1083 (2006). As in Hinson, we need not choose one
of these standards of review because Ruiz’ sentences are proper under either.
See id.
The 14-month terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of
supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum terms of
imprisonment the district court could have imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Moreover, the 14-month sentences were within the guidelines range
recommended by Sentencing Guidelines § 7B1.4(a). The district court had the
authority and discretion to impose consecutive sentences upon revocation of
Ruiz’s concurrent terms of supervised release. See Gonzalez, 250 F.3d at 925-29.
The district court stated the ends of justice and the best interests of the
public would not be served if Ruiz remained on supervised release. And, because
No. 07-50062
the sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release were within the
applicable advisory guidelines range, we infer that the district court considered
all of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73
(5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
evaluating the relevant factors regarding Ruiz’ sentences.
AFFIRMED.