United States v. Chavez, 104 F. App'x 410 (5th Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Chavez, 104 F. App'x 410 (5th Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jaime CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
03-40824.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 9, 2004.
Unpublished opinion
104 F. App'x 410
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Hill Peck, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sandra Zamora Zayas, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
Davis, Smith, Dennis.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Chavez pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement to transporting illegal aliens. Chavez appeals the 14-month sentence he received after the district court revoked his second term of supervised release.

Chavez argues that the district court plainly erred when it revoked the second term of supervised release it imposed on September 24, 2002, because, under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), the district court was not authorized to impose as a condition of supervised release that he be confined in a community corrections facility.

Chavez fails to establish that the district court’s imposition of residence at a community corrections center as a condition of supervised release was clear or obvious error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc). The 2001 Sentencing Guidelines, to which Chavez was subject, plainly state that residence in a community treatment center may be imposed as a condition of supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(l), p.s.; § 5F1.1. The 2001 Sentencing Guidelines are not in conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), which authorizes the district court to impose any condition it considers to be appropriate.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.,5 the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.