USA v. Terry Townley, No. 12-30872 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-30872 Document: 00512262572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30872 Summary Calendar June 4, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TERRY WAYNE TOWNLEY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:91-CR-20008-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Terry Wayne Townley appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the record does not support the court s decision to impose the statutory maximum sentence because he had only a single violation of his supervised release and because the Sentencing Guidelines recommended only six to 12 months of incarceration. He also contends that it is plainly unreasonable to impose such a harsh sentence on a defendant who was thrust back into society without first being given an * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30872 Document: 00512262572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 No. 12-30872 opportunity to ease the transition with the help of a halfway house. We review Townley s sentence under the plainly unreasonable standard. See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court was authorized to impose any sentence that fell within the five-year statutory maximum for Townley s original offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The ranges set forth under the Guidelines are advisory only. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994). We have often upheld statutory-maximum revocation sentences as plainly reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 500-01 (5th Cir. 2012). With the exception of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), the district court was to consider the factors outlined in § 3553(a) in selecting a sentence. Miller, 634 F.3d 843-44. The district court thus was within its discretion in selecting a sentence based on Townley s history of violence and his inability to comply with the terms of supervised release. See § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) & (C). Moreover, Townley points to no authority which supports his assertion that the district court was required to consider his inability to find placement in a halfway house, nor does he attempt to connect this fact with any of the relevant sentencing considerations set forth in § 3553(a). AFFIRMED. 2

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.