USA v. Megan Kemp


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-10224 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: ECP , Judge: JEG Mandate issue date is 12/26/2017 for Appellant Megan Kemp [17-10224]

Download PDF
Case: 17-10224 Document: 00514259794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10224 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 4, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MEGAN KEMP, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-26 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Megan Kemp appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Kemp argues that the district court committed procedural and substantive error by failing to account for her cooperation with state authorities in a related criminal matter. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-10224 Document: 00514259794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2017 No. 17-10224 Kemp’s contention that the district court failed to consider her cooperation as an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor is belied by the record. During sentencing, the district court acknowledged its authority to impose a sentence below the advisory guideline range. In discussing Kemp’s argument regarding her cooperation, the district court understood that Kemp wanted her cooperation to be taken into account when determining if a sentence below the advisory guideline range was appropriate. The district court explicitly stated that it would take Kemp’s arguments regarding her cooperation into consideration. There is no indication that the district court did not understand its discretion to consider Kemp’s assistance to state authorities with respect to the § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, there was no procedural error. See United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599 (5th Cir. 2014). In addition, Kemp fails to rebut the presumption that her sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors as well as Kemp’s arguments for mitigating her sentence, but concluded that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. This court will not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Kemp’s general disagreement with the propriety of her sentence and the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to her within-guidelines sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186; see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 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?