Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda R. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-30554.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 20, 2006.
    Joseph Albert Aluise, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary V. Schwabe, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Yolanda R. Singleton appeals her 15-month sentence of imprisonment for two counts of filing false tax claims. Singleton argues that the district court erred by not giving sufficient weight to her personal history and characteristics and that the district court should have imposed a sentence of probation rather than imprisonment.

Singleton’s argument is not persuasive. The district court noted that it had considered her personal history and characteristics, having reviewed the defense sentencing memorandum. However, Singleton’s arguments failed to persuade the district court to impose a sentence of probation. The district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range. Accordingly, the sentence is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir.2006). Singleton’s argument that the court erred in imposing a sentence within this range because it did not weigh the factors properly is without merit. She fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.