* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41583

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LESLIE CHEREE LEACH

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-15-ALL

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leslie Cheree Leach appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty

plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack

cocaine). The district court sentenced Leach to 140 months of imprisonment,

which was the minimum sentence under the advisory guidelines range. Four

days after Leach’s sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission

amended the Sentencing Guidelines, lowering the base offense levels for offenses

involving crack cocaine.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41583

2

After briefing was completed in this case, Leach moved to dismiss

appointed counsel and proceed pro se on appeal. Leach’s assertion of her right

to self-representation is untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901,

902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Leach’s motion to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se is

DENIED.

Leach argues for the first time on appeal that her sentence should be

vacated and the case should be remanded for resentencing in light of the

amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Leach did not ask the

sentencing court to consider the pending amendments to the Sentencing

Guidelines, the issue is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 325

(2007). The district court imposed the sentence pursuant to an advisory

guidelines range that was properly calculated based on the Guidelines that were

in effect at the time Leach was sentenced. United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez,

488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Kimler, 167 F.3d 889,

893 (5th Cir. 1999)); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (a), (b)(1). Accordingly, the district

court did not err by failing to consider the effect of the then-pending

amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Our review does not preclude future

consideration of this issue in a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. See United

States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1215 (5th Cir. 1996).

Leach also argues for the first time on appeal that her sentence is

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because the district court imposed the sentence

without engaging in a significant and meaningful analysis of the mitigation

evidence she presented. Leach’s argument is unavailing. The district court’s

sentence is within a properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is,

therefore, presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586,

597 (2007). A sentencing is not required to address every § 3553(a) factor
No. 06-41583

3

specifically and analyze its application to the defendant’s sentence. United

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

The district court heard counsel’s arguments in support of a sentence

below that recommended by the guidelines, which included a discussion of her

family support and her physically abusive marriage. Thereafter, the district

court gave a thorough explanation for its decision to impose a sentence within

the advisory guidelines range. The transcript shows that the district court

adequately considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, Leach has not

shown that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. See id.

AFFIRMED.