Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Brian PUGH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-21
Citations: 97 F. App'x 490
Docket Number: No. 03-31027
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Brian PUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Brian PUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-31027
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 21, 2004.
Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant US Attorney, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wayne Joseph Blanchard, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Brian Pugh pleaded guilty to one conspiracy charge and one fraud charge. The district court upwardly departed at sentencing and sentenced Pugh to 96 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Pugh now appeals his sentence, arguing only that the extent of the district court's departure was unreasonable. Because Pugh challenges only the extent of the district court's departure, we need not analyze the recent changes to review of upward departures set out in amended 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). See United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 326-29 (5th Cir.2004). Rather, we need only consider whether the extent of the departure was reasonable. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992); United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).
A review of this court's jurisprudence controverts Pugh's arguments and shows that the extent of the district court's departure, although substantial, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171, 173-74 (5th Cir.1995); Ashburn, 38 F.3d at 806; United States v. Rosogie, 21 F.3d 632, 633 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, there is no abuse of discretion, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.