Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George Brent CHIVERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-11
Citations: 559 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 12-11263
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George Brent CHIVERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George Brent CHIVERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-11263
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 11, 2014.
Andrew O. Wirmani, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Arnold, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Brent Chivers appeals the 57-month sentence imposed on remand from this court. Chivers, who was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and two counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud, contends that his above-guidelines sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain the sentence adequately. He also argues that the sentence violates his due process rights because it resulted from judicial vindictiveness.
Chivers has failed to demonstrate that the district court plainly erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. When imposing the 57-month sentence, the district court stated that it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, his history of violence against women, and his behavior at the resentencing hearing. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 474-75 (5th Cir.2010). He has also failed to demonstrate that the sentence resulted from judicial vindictiveness; the sentence received on resentencing was not harsher than the sentence received at sentencing. See United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 37-38 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the district court's judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.