United States v. Major

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30938
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SUSAN MAJOR,
also known as Susan Boniol,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:04-CR-189
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Susan Major appeals her sentence following her guilty-plea
conviction for making false statements to a federally insured
bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Major argues that the
district court’s upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3
was an abuse of discretion and unreasonable in light of the
factors that must be considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
district court determined that Major’s offense level was 19, her
criminal history category was VI, and her guideline range was 63-

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-30938
-2-
78 months. The district court departed upward to an offense
level of 24 and imposed a sentence of 120 months.
The district court explained that it was moving up
incrementally to the higher offense level because Major’s
criminal history score under-represented the seriousness of her
criminal history and likelihood for recidivism under U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.3. The court determined that Major has a consistent and
persistent history of fraudulent conduct, that she had previously
been on probation or supervised release on three occasions, that
she was on supervised release when she committed the instant
offense, and that she continued to be deceptive by lying to
investigating officers even after confessing to the instant
offense. The court indicated a belief that Major’s behavior was
unlikely to change in the future and that Major had abused a
position of trust.
We conclude that the district court’s decision to depart was
consistent with the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and was not
an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442
F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir. Mar. 2006); United States v. Smith,
417 F.3d 483, 491-92 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. (2005);
see also United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 312-13 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 810 (2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --