IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60983

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRIDGETTE COOK, also known as Bridgette Sanford,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:11-CR-165-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bridgette Cook pleaded guilty to conspiring to make, utter, and publish

false instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 514(a)(1) and (2). The

district court sentenced her to 48 months in prison, above the guidelines range

of 30 to 37 months, and a three-year term of supervised release. The court also

ordered that the sentence run consecutively to a state sentence that Cook was

then serving resulting from revocation of supervised release in a Mississippi

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 30, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-60983 Document: 00512358906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2013
No. 12-60983

state case. Prior to her Mississippi revocation, Cook served approximately two

years in prison for check forgery in Tennessee.

Cook argues that the upward variance was unreasonable because it was

based on her criminal history, which was already accounted for in the guidelines

range. She also contends that her sentence was substantively unreasonable

because the district court’s sentence, when combined with the four years she

served on state charges, resulted in a sentence significantly above the Guidelines

range.

“We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion,

whether it is inside or outside the guidelines range.” United States v.

Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2011). The above-guidelines sentence

was not an abuse of discretion. The choice of the sentence was grounded in the

district court’s assessment of proper factors, including Cook’s extensive history

of 28 fraud convictions, some of which were not counted in her 20 criminal

history points, seven more than needed to place her in Category VI; the

ineffectiveness of prior sentences in deterring future criminal behavior; and the

need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cook has shown no abuse

of discretion. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008);

United States v. Herrera-Garduno, 519 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir. 2008).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence

to run consecutively to the revocation sentence imposed in state court. The

imposition of a consecutive sentence is authorized by statute and is preferred

under the Guidelines when, as here, the defendant was on supervised release at

the time of the offense and that supervision is revoked. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584;

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.3(C)). The district court’s conclusion that a

consecutive sentence was appropriate was well within its discretion.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-60983 Document: 00512358906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2013