Case ID: f-appx_118/html/0860-01.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. Debbie STANPHILL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-60451.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 30, 2004.
    Robert Willie Coleman, II, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Cullen Stennett, Jimmy D. Shelton & Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Debbie Stanphill appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of her probation. She argues that the district court erred in departing upward from the sentencing guideline range of three to nine months. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7Bl.l(a)(3), 7B1.4(a).

Considering that Stanphill’s sentence for the offense of conviction was the result of a downward departure, an upward departure was authorized. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment, (n.4). The district court appropriately considered Stanphill’s need for drug treatment, and the 36-month sentence was well below the statutory maximum imprisonment term of 20 years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 286-87 (5th Cir.1997). The sentence was therefore legal. See Pena, 125 F.3d at 288. The district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined, that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.