Case ID: f-appx_275/html/0306-01.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. Robert Eon MARSHALL, also known as Bruce Charles Harmon, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10531
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2008.
    Bret E. Helmer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Aan Anderson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Eon Marshall appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for mail fraud. Marshall argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an upward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G § 4A1.3(a) based on an under-representation of his criminal history and a likelihood of recidivism. He contends that the district court’s reasons for upwardly departing are inadequate and do not support a departure under § 4A1.3(a).

“An upward departure by a district court is not an abuse of discretion if the court’s reasons for departing 1) advance the objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and 2) are justified by the facts of the case.” United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 918, 126 S.Ct. 2954, 165 L.Ed.2d 975 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Marshall’s upward departure meets those criteria. The district court considered the factors of § 3553(a) and articulated the objectives served in imposing an upward departure. Marshall’s similar prior offenses, his disregard for court orders, and the use of aliases signify a likelihood of recidivism. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.