USA v. Price, No. 06-10734 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-10734 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BETTY PRICE, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-114-ALL -------------------Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Betty Price appeals from the sentence revocation of her term of supervised release. imposed following Price argues that her sentence is unreasonable because it substantially exceeded the advisory guideline range and the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence. She requests this court to vacate her sentence and remand the case for resentencing. The Government has moved for dismissal of the appeal or for summary affirmance on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Price s appeal under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3742(a)(4). * Because 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-10734 -2Price cannot prevail on the merits of her appeal, we pretermit consideration of this issue. See United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). The Government s motion for dismissal of the appeal or for summary affirmance is therefore denied. The Government s alternative request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief is also denied as unnecessary. 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 Price has not shown that her sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. Cir. 2005), See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Price s sentence, while in excess of the recommended range, was within the statutory maximum sentence that the district court could have imposed. Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. United States Therefore, the v. Smith, sentence 440 was F.3d 704, neither 707 (5th unreasonable Cir. nor See 2006). plainly unreasonable. AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED; ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
