Charles Eubanks has appealed the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. Eubanks contends that his rights to grand jury indictment and a jury trial were violated, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He complains that the total sentence imposed by the district court exceeded the sentence he could have received under the Sentencing Guidelines for the offense of conviction and that the additional sentence was imposed on the basis of facts found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence instead of by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. These issues are without merit. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 116-19 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764. The sentence was not imposed in violation of law and was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable under the facts of this case. See Hinson, 429 F.3d at 119-20; see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3) & 3583(e)(3).

AFFIRMED.