Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard FEDERMANN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-05
Citations: 188 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 05-50615
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard FEDERMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 188
Pages: 240–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard FEDERMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50615.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 5, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terrence W. Kirk, Law Office of Terrence W. Kirk, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Federmann appeals the 546-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin, distribution of heroin to a person under 21 years of age, and aiding and abetting. He contends that the sentence, which exceeded the guideline range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment, was unreasonable. He argues that the district court failed to properly articulate reasons for the sentence and improperly considered his age in determining the sentence.
We review the sentence for reasonableness. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). The district court considered the Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and thoroughly articulated the reasons for imposing a non-Guidelines sentence in this case. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006). A review of those reasons shows that the district court did not fail to account for a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, did not give significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, nor was the sentence imposed the result of clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. Id. at 708. Accordingly, the 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.