USA v. Chalon Chisholm
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11422 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate pull date is 10/18/2017 for Appellant Chalon Chisholm [16-11422]
Date Filed: 09/27/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
September 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-64-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Chalon Chisholm appeals the 40-month above guideline sentence
imposed following her guilty plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Chisholm contends that her sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court failed to follow the proper procedures in imposing the
sentence as a departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 09/27/2017
Chisholm’s argument is without merit. This court recognizes three types
of sentences: (1) a sentence within the advisory guidelines range; (2) a
“departure” based on the Guidelines; and (3) a non-guidelines sentence or
“variance” independent of the Guidelines and based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). To that
end, the record reflects that the district court imposed a non-guidelines
sentence or variance based on the § 3553(a) factors.
arguments regarding the district court’s misapplication of § 4A1.3 are
inapposite. Chisholm does not otherwise challenge the sentence as a variance
based on the § 3553(a) factors, nor does she challenge the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Chisholm elsewhere argues that the district court failed to adequately
explain the above guidelines sentence. However, the argument, which is made
without citation to authorities or the record, is inadequately briefed and is
therefore waived. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?