USA v. Megan Kemp

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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