### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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 p leaded guilty to conspiring to make, utter, a nd 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 t o 37 months, and a three-year term of supervised r elease. The court also ordered t hat th e sentence run consecutively to a state sentence that Cook was then serving resulting f r om revocation of supervised r e l e a s e in a Mississippi U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 30, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60983 Document: 00512358906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2013No. 12-60983

state case. Prior to her M ississippi revocation, C ook 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 sen t e n c e w as substantively unreasonable b e c a u s e the district court’s sentence, when combined with the four years she served on state charges, r e s u l t e d i n a s e nt e n ce significantly above the Guidelines range. “We review the reasonableness of a s entence for abuse of discretion, whether it is inside or o u tside the guidelines range.” United S tates v. Hernandez , 633 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2 011). The above-g u i d e l i n e s s entence

was not an abuse of discretion. The choice of the sentence w as grounded in the district court’s a ssessment of proper factors, including C o ok’s extensive history of 28 fraud convictions, some of which were not count e d i n her 20 c riminal history points, seven more than needed t o p l ace 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, 3 50 ( 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 s entence to run consecutively t o t h e r evocation sentence imposed in state court. The imposi t i o n o f a consecutive sentence is a uthorized b y statute and i s preferred under the G uidelines when, as here, the defendant was on supervised release at the time of t h e o f

f e n s e and that supervision is revoked. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.3, 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