Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30056 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. T A NYAMA R I E S MI T H , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R
- 30037- 1 B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Aj ury c onvi c t ed Tanya M ar i e Sm i t h of cons pi r i ng t o pos se ss f i r ear m s by con victedfelon s, be i n g a fel on i n p oss ess i on of firea rm s, a n d p oss ess i n g a sh ortba r r e l e d s ho t gunno tr e gi s t e r e d t o h er, a s ch ar ge d i n Count s 1 , 2 , a nd 4o f t he i n di ct m en t , res pec tiv e ly. O v e r S m ith ’ s o bjec tion , th e d istr ict cou rtcalcul ated her sentenci n g ra n g e b a se d on t h e base of fen se l evelf

or s econd degree m u rder, pu rsuan tto the “ cros s reference” provi si on of U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1(c) ( 1) ( B ) . B ecau se t he a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s r ang e w as hi ghe r t hat t he s t at ut o r y m ax i m um s f o rt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30056

2 of fen ses, t h e courtsentenced S m i t h t o t h e st atutor y m axim u m s, 60 m on t h s on C ount1 and 120 m ont hs o n C ount s 2 and 4, t o r un co nse c ut ively. Sm i t h c hall e nge s t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he ev i de nc e t o s upp o r the rc o nvi c t i o ns on C ount s 1 and 4 . S he ar gues t hatt he G ove r nm entfai l ed t o pr ovean ag r e e m e ntt o s upp o r the rc o ns pir ac y c o nvi c t i o n a nd fail e d t o p rove t hats he possessed t h e shotgun . B ecau se s h e rai sed t h ese argum en t s i n her m ot i on s f or ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l, r e v ie w is d e n o v o . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Perc el , 553 F. 3d 9 0 3 , 9 1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 12 9 S. Ct . 20 65 and 20 67 ( 20 09). Th ere w as e vi de nc e t hatSm i t h a nd Denni s Cl e m , bo t h c o nvi c t e d fe l o ns , dr o ve a r o und Bas t r o p, Lo ui s i ana , w i t h t he s ho t guna nd o t he rf i r e ar m s und e rab l ank e to n t he f l o o rbo ar d b e hi nd the f r o ntse at . Sm i t h was us uall y t he dr ive ro f t he v e hi c l e a nd o ne da y ac c o m pa ni e d Cl e m a nd a no t he rm an w he n t he y t o o k t he s ho t guna nd o t he r f i r e ar m s f

r o m ve hi c l e and s ho t t he m o n s o m e l and . Vi e w e d i n t h e l i ght m ost fav ora b l e to th e v erd i ct, a re a son a b l e j u ry cou l dcon cl u d e b oth tha t Sm i th a g r e e dto v io la te th e la w p r o h ib itin gh e ra n dC le m f r o m p o s s e s s in gfir e a r m s , see Uni t e d S t at e s v. B i eganow s ki , 3 13 F. 3d2 64 , 2 77 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2) , a nd thats he c o n s tr u c tiv e lyp o s s e s s e dth e s h o tg u n , see Un i t ed S t ate s v. Kn eze k , 964 F. 2d 394, 4 0 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). S m i t h asks t h i s c ou rtt o revi ew the su f f i ci en cy of

t h e evi den ce t o sup port he rc o nvi c t i o n o n Count2 , b utpr o vi de s no f ur t he ra r gum e nt . Sheha s t hus a b a n d o n e dth is is s u e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t alnak er , 5 71 F 3d4 28, 4 33 (5t h C i r. 200 9) . M oreover, t h e evi den ce t h at s u pp ort s t h e posse ss ion el em en tof her convic t i on on C ou n t4 sup p ort s t h e possess i on el em en tof her convic t i on on C ount2. W i t h r e ga r d t o he r s e nt e nc e , Sm i t h c hall e nge s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t h at itw as cr edibl e t h at C ryst alH arrel l cal l ed Sm i t h bef ore t h e doom ed p ol i ce of f i cers arrivedat S m i t h an d C l em ’ s hotelroom . O u r r evi e w o f th e rec ord r e v e a ls th a t t h is fin d in gis p la u s ib le inlig h t o f th e re c o r da s w h o le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 5 17 F . 3d 7 51, 7 64 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) . To t he e xt e ntN o. 09- 30056

3 t h i s f i n di n g i s ba sed on dou bl e hea rsay, Sm i t h ha s not show n t h at th e evi den ce r e g a r d in gt h e p h o n e ca ll w a s u n r e lia b le o ru n tr u e . S eeU .S .S .G . § 6 A 1 .3 (a ), p .s ., co m m e n t. (n o tin gth a t th e se n t e n cin gco u rt m a yco n sid e r “r e li a b le h e a rs a y”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 62 F . 3d723 , 725 n . 9 ( 5th C i r. 1 995 ) ( sam e) . Th u s, s he ha s no ts h ow n the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n c o ns i de r i ng t he i nf o r m at i o n. S m i t h asser t s, w i t h ou tf u rt h er argu m en t , t h at applyi n g t h e fact ors set f ort h i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) t o deter m i n e t h e reason ableness of t h e sentence i m p ose d , h er “sen ten ce is cl ea rl y e xc ess ive . ” S m i th didn ot ob j ect sp ecif i ca l l y to th e s u b s ta n tiv e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e , a n dth u s , re v ie w is fo rp la in e r r o ro n ly . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Pel t i er , 505 F. 3d 389, 391- 92 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e s e n te n c e im p o s e do n e a c h co u n t o f c o n v ic tio n is w ith in th e p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te dg u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d , th u s , is p r e s u m p tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lon zo , 4 35 F . 3d551 , 554 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) . Fu rt h er, t h e rec ord i n di cat es t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ad e an i ndivi dua l i z e d s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i o n bas e d o n t he fa c ts o f th e ca s e in lig h t o f th e fa c to r s s e t o u t in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S eeG a ll , 552 U . S. at 49-50. Sm i t h ha s not overcom e t h e presum pti on of reasonab l en ess an d h as not show n th at th e di st ri ctcourtp la in ly e rred i n deter m i n i n g t h at th e sentences im p o se dw o u ldsa tisfyth e g o a ls o f § 3 5 5 3 (a). AF F I RMED.