UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo GARZA, also known as Eddie Garza, Defendant-Appellant, 514 F. App'x 509

PER CURIAM: Eduardo Garza appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his previously imposed term of supervised release. He argues that he was subject to a maximum revocation sentence of only 36 months, but the district court sentenced him to 48 months of imprisonment. Because Garza argues that his revocation sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is illegal, our review is de novo. See United States v. Vera, 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir.2008).

The statutory maximum revocation sentence is based on the classification of the underlying offense that resulted in the imposition of the term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Unless the underlying offense of conviction specifies a particular classification, this classification is based on the “maximum term of imprisonment authorized” for that underlying offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a). In the instant case, Garza was convicted for a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B), which ordinarily would carry a statutory maximum sentence of 40 years of imprisonment.

However, because the Government provided notice of his earlier felony drug conviction as required by 21 U.S.C. § 851, his “maximum term of imprisonment authorized” under § 841(b)(1)(

B) increased to life. Therefore, Garza’s underlying offense qualified as a Class A felony, and his applicable statutory maximum revocation sentence was five years. See § 3559(a)(1); § 3583(e)(3). Thus, his 48-month revocation sentence is not illegal because it does not exceed the applicable five year statutory maximum. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.