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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
Case: 16-11422 Document: 00514173343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-11422 Summary Calendar FILED September 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHALON CHISHOLM, Defendant-Appellant 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-11422 Document: 00514173343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 No. 16-11422 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. Thus, Chisholm’s 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 Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. 2

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?