UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William Paul ANDRIZZI, Defendant-Appellant, 235 F. App'x 992

PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant William Paul Andrizzi appeals the sentence he received on revocation of his term of supervised release. He contends that the sentence is unreasonable, because it exceeds the sentencing range recommended in the relevant policy statements in the Sentencing Guidelines, and because the district court failed to specify its reasons for imposing sentence. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or for

summary affirmance, contending that we lack jurisdiction to consider it under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4). As Andrizzi cannot prevail on the merits of his appeal, we do not consider the jurisdictional issue. See United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1992). The district court reviewed the probation officer’s report, read aloud the charges against Andrizzi, and considered the applicable guidelines policy statements. Andrizzi’s 24-month sentence was reasonable and was not imposed in violation of law. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir.2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s motions are DENIED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.