IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30668

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CINDY MARIE LONDO

Defendant-Appellant

consolidated with

No. 08-30669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MONICA RENE BRUMFIELD

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-60015-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30668 c/w

No. 08-30669

 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.

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cindy Marie Londo and Monica Rene Brumfield, whose cases have been

consolidated on appeal, were involved in a scheme to defraud the Social Security

Administration. Londo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit

social-security fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Brumfield, to one count of

making a false statement to a government agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1001. 

The advisory guideline range of imprisonment for both Londo and

Brumfield was 15 to 21 months. Londo contended at sentencing that her

criminal-history score over-represented her past crimes; Brumfield, that the

court should consider the difficult circumstances of her life when determining

her sentence. The district court imposed sentences outside the advisory

guideline range, requiring Londo and Brumfield each to serve 60 months in

prison.

Londo and Brumfield contend their sentences are substantively

unreasonable because their respective criminal histories were adequately and

accurately represented in the presentence report. Because Londo and Brumfield

present different contentions on appeal than they presented in district court,

review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Green, 324 F.3d 375, 381

(5th Cir. 2003) (observing that, where a contention on appeal differs from that

raised in district court, our review is for plain error). 

In selecting the sentences, the district court appropriately considered the

advisory sentencing guidelines and the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United States v. Gall,
No. 08-30668 c/w

No. 08-30669

3

128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007). The court found the 60-month sentences

appropriate in the light of Londo’s and Brumfield’s personal and criminal

histories, their likelihood of recidivism, the need to promote respect for the law,

the need to provide a deterrent to future criminal behavior, and the need to

protect the public. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-93 (5th

Cir. 2005) (post-Booker, affirming a departure from a range of 33 to 41 months

to a statutory maximum of 120 months on the basis that Smith was “a habitual

criminal who has not been deterred by probation or parole, supervision, brief jail

terms, or prison sentences”). 

Finally, the 186% upward deviation in issue here, although substantial,

is less than, or approximately equal to, other guideline departures and

deviations affirmed in this circuit post-Booker and post-Gall. See, e.g., United

States v. Mejia-Huerta, 480 F.3d 713, 716-19, 723-24 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming

upward deviations of 140%, 134%, 344%, and 122% from the advisory guideline

ranges), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2954 (2008).

Accordingly, neither the district court’s variance from the advisory

guidelines range nor the extent of the variance constitutes plain error. See Gall,

128 S. Ct. at 596-97. 

AFFIRMED.