Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Frasiel Hughey

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-50190
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FRASIEL HUGHEY
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:95-CR-229
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Frasiel Hughey appeals the 36-month sentence
imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release.
Hughey was convicted in 1996 of two counts of fraud in connection with access
devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), multiple counts of possessing
counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513, and one count of bank fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Hughey had been serving a five-year term of
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 2, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-50190
2
supervised release for the bank fraud violation, which was a Class B felony,
when he violated the terms of his supervised release.
Hughey does not disagree with the district court’s determination that the
statutory maximum sentence on revocation is 36 months or that the district
court had the authority to impose the statutory maximum sentence. Rather, he
contends that the 36-month sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the
sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and is therefore unreasonable.
A district court may impose any sentence that falls within the maximum
term of imprisonment allowed by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). In doing
so, the district court is to consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and the
advisory policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines. United
States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 427-28 (5th Cir. 2008).
The record reflects that the district court considered the Chapter Seven
policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court specifically noted
Hughey’s recidivism and the need to protect society from future crimes. Thus,
the record reflects that Hughey’s sentence is supported by the factors set forth
in § 3553(a), particularly the need for the sentence to promote respect for the
law, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public
from future crimes.
The district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, and Hughey’s
sentence is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See McKinney, 520
F.3d at 428. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --