Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0343-01.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. Sheri Elizabeth BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-11204
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 11, 2008.
    Amanda R. Burch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sheri Elizabeth Bell pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement to one count of health care fraud and was sentenced to serve 51 months in prison. Bell appeals her sentence. She argues that the district court’s loss calculation is incorrect and that both the loss amount and her base offense level should be reduced.

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2005). When reviewing a sentence, we consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district coui’t’s sentencing decision is ultimately reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.', see also United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cm.), petition for cert. filed, (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226).

Bell has shown no significant procedural error in connection with her sentence. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. The district court’s findings concerning the amount of loss are plausible when considered in view of the record as a whole and thus are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Janes, 475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Bell. See Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 564. 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.