United States v. Phillpotts

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
February 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 06-60162
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
SHAREE NICOLE PHILLPOTTS,
Defendant-Appellant
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:05-CR-58-ALL)
---------------------
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Sharee Nicole Phillpotts appeals the
district court’s sentence imposed following her guilty-plea
conviction on one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1341. She was sentenced to twenty months in prison, to be followed
by three years supervised release, $18,000 restitution, and $100
special assessment fee. Her term of imprisonment is outside the
Guidelines, so our review is for reasonableness.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
As calculated in the Pre-Sentencing Report prepared by
probation, Phillpotts’s Guideline sentence range was 8-14 months
for her crime of conviction, which carries a maximum sentence of 20
years. At the sentencing hearing, the district court advised the
parties that it planned to sentence outside the Guidelines and
invited comments. After acknowledging the Guideline range and
accepting the Pre-Sentencing Report, the court determined to
sentence Phillpotts outside the Guidelines because (1) while out on
bond awaiting sentencing, she left Mississippi without obtaining
permission and without notifying her probation officer, and (2) she
did not interview with probation.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the
appellate briefs of the parties, especially comparing the sentence
here imposed and its relationship to the Guideline range in light
of our analogous case law. As a result, we are satisfied that,
under the post-Booker Guidelines regime, including our plain error
standard of review because of defense counsel’s failure
sufficiently to object to the district court’s deviation from the
Guidelines, the sentence of the district court is not inconsistent
with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, under all
relevant facts and circumstances, it is not unreasonable. Given
the strong deference we owe to the sentencing courts, particularly
under a plain error standard of review, the instant sentence,
varying as it does from the Guideline range, is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 3 --

3

-- 3 of 3 --