United States v. Hall

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60620
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MENIONTI HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:05-CR-51-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Menionti Hall appeals the sentence imposed after she pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to transfer and use without lawful authority
means of identification of other persons in or affecting
interstate commerce with the intent to commit felonies including
wire fraud and mail fraud, and to aiding and abetting in the
unlawful use of the identity of another in order to fraudulently
obtain a student loan check, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1028(a)(7) and (b)(1)(D), 1028(f), 1341, and 1343. Hall and
others obtained student loans using the stolen identities of

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-60620
-2-
others as co-signors on the student loan applications. The
district court decided to upwardly depart from the advisory
guidelines range of 24 to 36 months and sentenced Hall to 60
months of imprisonment.
When a defendant appeals a sentence imposed pursuant to the
advisory guidelines scheme required by United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), this court determines whether the sentence
was reasonable. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th
Cir. 2006). The sentencing court’s factual findings are accepted
unless clearly erroneous, and the application of the Guidelines
is reviewed de novo. Id.
Hall characterizes her sentence as a non-guidelines sentence
and argues that the district court was therefore required to more
thoroughly articulate its reasons for the sentence, but failed to
do so. The record does not support Hall’s characterization of
her sentence as a non-guidelines sentence, however. The district
court specifically noted during the sentencing hearing that it
was departing above the advisory guideline range pursuant to
application note 19 of § 2B1.1.
Because the district court upwardly departed pursuant to a
provision within the Guidelines, Hall’s sentence is a guidelines
sentence, and the decision to depart is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 707; see also United States
v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 415-16 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1911 (2006). A sentencing court does not abuse its

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-60620
-3-
discretion in deciding to upwardly depart when its reasons for
doing so (1) advance the objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2); (2) are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); and
(3) are justified by the facts of the case. United States v.
Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 310 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 1097 (2006).
The district court articulated its reasons for the
departure, noting that Hall caused harm not only to the companies
providing the student loans, but also to the victims whose
identities were stolen to secure the loans and that the type of
damage suffered by the victims is specifically the kind addressed
in § 2B1.1, application note 19. Hall’s victims have been denied
both student and consumer loans and have suffered substantial
inconvenience related to the repair of their damaged credit.
Moreover, the extent of the departure, while significant, is not
unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
the departure, and neither the district court’s decision to
depart upward nor the extent of the departure are unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --