Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60055/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Beasley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60055

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID BEASLEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:10-CR-78-5

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Beasley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud through 

a telemarketing scheme that victimized ten or more persons over the age of 55. 

Beasley was sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. We vacated Beasley’s 

sentence and remanded the case because the district court misapplied the 

Sentencing Guidelines. On remand, Beasley’s advisory guidelines sentencing 

range was 168 to 210 months in prison. Within that range, the district court 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60055 Document: 00512489778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-60055

sentenced Beasley to 210 months of imprisonment. Beasley now challenges 

the reasonableness of his 210-month sentence alleging that the district court 

failed to consider his post-sentence rehabilitation.

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated 

guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the record reflects that 

the district court considered information regarding Beasley’s post-sentence

rehabilitation efforts. Beasley’s “disagreement with the propriety of the 

sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness 

that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence.” United States v. Ruiz, 621 

F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-60055 Document: 00512489778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014