United States v. Stafford

269 F. App'x 439
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 11, 2008
Docket07-30625
StatusUnpublished

This text of 269 F. App'x 439 (United States v. Stafford) 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. Stafford, 269 F. App'x 439 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Earl Stafford appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to *440 two counts of a multi-count indictment alleging numerous instances of mail fraud arising from a scheme to defraud insurance companies through false claims. The district court imposed a 24-month sentence, which was above the advisory guidelines maximum sentence of 10 months.

Stafford contends that the amount of loss was miscalculated and should not have included insurance payments for legitimate claims arising from the accident. The district court was entitled to rely on the loss amount calculated in the presentence report because Stafford presented no evidence that any claim was legitimate. See United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Fisk, 233 Fed.Appx. 371, 373 (5th Cir .2007).

Stafford contends that the restitution order was erroneous because the loss amount was miscalculated. Because the loss was correctly calculated, the restitution order was correct.

Stafford contends that he was “improperly” sentenced above the guidelines range. The sentence was reasonable as either an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) or as a non-guidelines sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 595-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court based the sentence on numerous repeat DWI offenses that were not counted in Stafford’s criminal history score, and the court clearly explained that the enhanced sentence was needed for deterrence and protection of the public under § 3553(a).

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 *440 published and is not precedent except under ' 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. Caldwell
448 F.3d 287 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Fisk
233 F. App'x 371 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. App'x 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stafford-ca5-2008.