Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60649/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60649-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tennie White
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60649

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TENNIE WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:12-CR-126-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tennie White appeals the non-Guidelines sentence imposed following 

her conviction of two counts of making false statements and one count of 

obstructing a proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1505. The 

district court considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

including the advisory guidelines range of 15 to 21 months of imprisonment, 

* 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 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-60649 Document: 00512914081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2015
No. 13-60649

decided not to sentence White under the Sentencing Guidelines, and sentenced 

her to 40 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

White argues that the district court procedurally erred by not applying 

the Guidelines to determine whether to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines 

and by not applying U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s., to determine the extent of its 

upward departure. As she concedes, because she did not raise this argument 

in the district court, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (iterating the four-part plain error test).

The district court is not required to apply § 4A1.3 before imposing a nonGuidelines sentence, as here. United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 151-53 

(5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 

2007). Accordingly, the district court did not err by failing to apply § 4A1.3.

White contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court gave significant weight to irrelevant uncharged conduct. “A 

non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing 

factors where it . . . gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor 

. . . .” United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). White has not 

shown that the conduct relied upon by the district court was an irrelevant or 

improper sentencing factor. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3661. Moreover, the 

district court could adopt the facts contained in the presentence report (PSR) 

because they bore “a sufficient indicia of reliability” and White did “not present 

rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the information in the PSR is 

unreliable.” United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173-74 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 13-60649 Document: 00512914081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2015