Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Milton DAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-21
Citations: 200 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 06-60282
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Milton DAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 200
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Milton DAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-60282
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 21, 2006.
Paul David Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth Harold Coghlan, Rayburn Coghlan Law Firm, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Milton Day appeals the 120-month sen tence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for credit card fraud and identity theft. Day argues for the first time on appeal that the extent of the district court's "upward departure" was unreasonable because the sentence failed to advance 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)'s factors and was not justified by the facts of the case.
Day fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court's non-guidelines sentence, which was imposed after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and which was an upward deviation from the guidelines range of imprisonment, was error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 434-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2958, 165 L.Ed.2d 970 (2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-10 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 713, 163 L.Ed.2d 543 (2005).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.