IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30421

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRANDON M. DEL BOSQUE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:11-CR-119-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Del Bosque appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for forging and using the forged signatures of a judge and

court officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505. For the first time on appeal, he

contends that his sentence, which represented an upward variance from the

guidelines range, was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 

Because Del Bosque did not object to his sentence on these grounds in the

district court, we review for plain error, which requires him to show a forfeited

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 29, 2012

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: 12-30421 Document: 00512067837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2012
No. 12-30421

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See United

States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Puckett v. United

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the

discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S.

at 135.

Del Bosque first argues that the district court based its sentence on clearly

erroneous facts, specifically, his purported manipulation of his wife and her

grandmother, when there was no evidence that he used the forged document to

manipulate anyone. Contrary to his assertion, the Presentence Report (PSR)

contained sufficient evidence of Del Bosque’s manipulation of family members,

and the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in relying on the PSR’s

findings and conclusions given the absence of any rebuttal evidence. See United

States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Solis, 299

F.3d 420, 455 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Specifically, the

letters from Del Bosque’s wife and grandmother stating that they did not feel

victimized by him were insufficient to rebut the findings in the PSR. See Solis,

299 F.3d at 455.

Alternatively, Del Bosque contends that, even if there was sufficient

evidence to show that he manipulated his family members, the court erred in

relying on that fact to support its upward variance, rendering his sentence

substantively unreasonable. He reasons that because intent to defraud is not an

element of the offense, his attempt to take advantage of his wife’s grandmother

was irrelevant in assessing the seriousness of the offense under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A). 

The argument is without merit. Del Bosque’s manipulation of family

members was a relevant consideration because the record establishes the

interconnectedness of his gambling addiction, its effects on his family, and the

nature and circumstances of the instant offense. Further, Del Bosque ignores

2

 Case: 12-30421 Document: 00512067837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2012
No. 12-30421

the fact that the district court additionally relied on his extensive criminal

history, which included theft and financial misrepresentation crimes, and on the

seriousness of the offense, which the court determined compromised the

reputation of the court and victimized well-respected members of the judiciary. 

Del Bosque has not demonstrated any plain error relative to the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Brantley, 537

F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008); Peltier, 505 F.3d at 392; see also Puckett, 556 U.S.

at 135. His argument does not show that the district court relied on an improper

§ 3553(a) factor but instead reflects his disagreement with the propriety of his

sentence and the district court’s weighing of those factors. To the extent that he

seeks to have this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, this court may not do so. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 767 (5th Cir. 2008). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 

3

 Case: 12-30421 Document: 00512067837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2012