USA v. Dold

Filing 920060630

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 05-10395 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

F I L E D
June 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDWARD THOMAS DOLD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (5:04-CR-91-ALL-C) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edward Thomas Dold pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in monetary transactions derived from unlawful activity. sentenced, inter alia, to serve 120 months in prison. Dold claims the district court reversibly erred by upwardly departing at sentencing. Because he did not object in district E.g., United States v. No authority need be He was

court, we review only for plain error. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2006).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1

*

cited for the plain­error factors, one of which is "clear" or "obvious" error. His contention that the decision to depart was based on improper factors lacks merit. The court gave extensive reasons for that decision, including the extreme psychological trauma caused to the victims of the offense and the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Its remarks at sentencing show the departure was based on valid grounds. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3; United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Dold maintains his sentence is unreasonable because it differs from that given to another defendant fails. A similarly situated

defendant's receiving a different sentence is insufficient to show Dold's sentence was unreasonable. F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). Dold's claim that the court did not give an adequate See United States v. Smith, 440

explanation for its choice of sentence and did not commit this explanation to paper is refuted by the record. See id. at 707; see

also United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 416-17 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1911 (2006). Dold's assertions, the magnitude of the And, contrary to departure was not

unreasonable.

See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 713 (2005); Jones, 444 F.3d at 433.

2

Dold has not shown error. show the requisite plain error.

Therefore, he obviously fails to

AFFIRMED

3