United States v. Craft

288 F. App'x 212
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 13, 2008
Docket08-60132
StatusUnpublished

This text of 288 F. App'x 212 (United States v. Craft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Craft, 288 F. App'x 212 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Carl Craft pleaded guilty to one count of possession of implements used to make counterfeit payroll checks. The district court imposed a non-guideline sentence of 60 months in prison, which was twice the advisory guidelines range maximum of 30 months. Craft argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The record shows that the district court specifically considered Craft’s criminal history, his victimization of vulnerable codefendants, the need to deter his future criminal conduct, the need to protect the public, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide a just punishment. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Craft because it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808-09 (5th Cir.2008). Furthermore, the extent of the variance was not unreasonable given the evidence before the district court. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 419 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 251-53 (5th Cir.), modified on reh’g, 479 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *214 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Rajwani
479 F.3d 904 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Williams
517 F.3d 801 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Richard Michael Simkanin
420 F.3d 397 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Nina K. Rajwani
476 F.3d 243 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 F. App'x 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-craft-ca5-2008.