### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH 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 1 2

- 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 ti m e 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 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f Ap p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 29, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-30421 Document: 00512067837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2012No. 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 discreti o n 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 Present e nce Report (PSR) contained sufficient evidence of Del Bosque’s manipulation of family members, and the district court did not err, plainly or otherwis e , i n r elying 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 l e tters from Del Bosque’s wife and grandmother stating that they did n o t f e e l victimized by him were insufficient to rebut the findings in the PSR. See Solis , 299 F.3d at 455. Alternatively, Del Bosque contend s th at , even if there was sufficient evidence to show that he manipulated his family m e mb ers, the court erred in relying on that fa c t t o 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

w a s 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 ma ni p ulation of family members was a relevant cons i d eration because the record establishes the interconnectedness of his gambling addiction, its effects on his family, and the nature and circumstances of the instant offens e . Further, Del Bosque ignores
2 Case: 12-30421 Document: 00512067837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2012No. 12-30421

the fact that the district court additionally relied on his extensive c ri m i n al history, which included theft and financial misrepresentation crimes, and on the seriousness of the offense, whi c h the court determined compromised the reputation of the court and victimized well-respected members of the judiciary. Del Bosque has not demonstrated any plain err o r 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) f

actor 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 , 5 5 2 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) ; see also United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 767 (5th Cir. 200 8). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

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