USA v. Bell

Filing 920080911

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 07-11204 Summary Calendar
September 11, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHERI ELIZABETH BELL Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-13-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sheri Elizabeth Bell pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement to one count of health care fraud and was sentenced to serve 51 months in prison. Bell appeals her sentence. She argues that the district court's loss calculation is incorrect and that both the loss amount and her base offense level should be reduced.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

*

No. 07-11204 Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). When reviewing a sentence, we consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 597 (2007). The district court's sentencing decision is ultimately reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226). Bell has shown no significant procedural error in connection with her sentence. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The district court's findings concerning the amount of loss are plausible when considered in view of the record as a whole and thus are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Jones, 475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Bell. See GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d at 564. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2