Case: 09-50481     Document: 00511102549          Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/06/2010




            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                     FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                                  FILED
                                                                             May 6, 2010
                                     No. 09-50481
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDDIE MARTINEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:04-CR-2699-1


Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        Eddie Martinez challenges the sentence the district court imposed after
revoking a previously imposed term of supervised release. Martinez argues that
the 24-month sentence is plainly unreasonable because the sentence was
supposed to be a penalty for his breach of trust in violating the conditions of his
supervision, a breach which he asserts was relatively minor. He contends that
a sentence between four and ten months of imprisonment, the Sentencing



        *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
   Case: 09-50481   Document: 00511102549 Page: 2        Date Filed: 05/06/2010
                                No. 09-50481

Guidelines range, would have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
      Because Martinez did not object to the sentence in the district court, we
review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 

, 792 (5th
Cir. 2007). While the 24-month sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range
as properly calculated by the district court, the sentence did not exceed the
statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Given the district court’s
expressed concerns regarding Martinez’s history and characteristics, and its
implicit consideration of other § 3553(a) factors as well, Martinez has not shown
that the sentence constituted plain error. See 

; United
States v. Smith, 

, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Teran, 

, 836 (5th Cir. 1996).
      AFFIRMED.




                                       2