Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0338-01.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. Cardal HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-31259
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 16, 2007.
    U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John H. Craft, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Cardal Hayes entered a guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Hayes asserts that the district court’s upward deviation from the advisory sentencing range of 24 to 30 months was not proper or reasonable.

The record reflects that the district court calculated the applicable guidelines range, used that range as a frame of reference, and decided to upwardly deviate from that range. The district court addressed the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and cited fact specific reasons for the imposition of Hayes’s sentence. See United States v. Tzep-Mejia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir.2006). The district court’s consideration of victim impact was not in error. See United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 250 (5th Cir.), opinion modified, 479 F.3d 904 (2006). Because the district court did not fail to account for a factor which should have received significant weight, give significant weight to an improper factor, or make a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors, Hayes’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-09 (5th Cir.2006).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.