Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0835-01.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. Chalon CHISHOLM, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11422 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    FILED September 27, 2017
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Chalón Chisholm appeals the 40-month above guideline sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Chisholm contends that her sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to follow the proper procedures in imposing the sentence as a departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.

Chisholm’s argument is without merit. This court recognizes three types of sentences: (1) a sentence within the advisory guidelines range; (2) a “departure” based on the Guidelines; and (3) a non-guidelines sentence or “variance” independent of the Guidelines and based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008), To that end, the record reflects that the district court imposed a non-guidelines sentence or variance based on the § 3553(a) factors. Thus, Chisholm’s arguments regarding the district court’s misapplication of § 4A1.3 are inapposite. Chisholm does not otherwise challenge the sentence as a variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, nor does she challenge the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Chisholm elsewhere argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the above guidelines sentence. However, the argument, which is made without citation to authorities or the record, is inadequately briefed and is' therefore waived. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR.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