Opinion ID: 4534671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentencing issues as to Etti

Text: Etti argues that her below-Guidelines sentence of 85 months was substantively unreasonable. She also concedes that her objection to her sentence was not based on the specific grounds she now raises, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Etti’s sentence was below the advisory Guidelines range, so we presume it was reasonable. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). This presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Etti relies on a district court opinion where the court departed downward from an advisory Guidelines range in sentencing because the defendant, who had falsified certain documents, did not personally receive monetary benefit from the fraudulent scheme other than continued employment, expressed remorse, and seemed to be a law-abiding man who made a poor choice due to family stress, health problems, and pressure from employers. See United 13 Case: 19-10400 Document: 00515416830 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/14/2020 No. 19-10400 States v. Keller, No. 3:04-CR-233-G, 2005 WL 6192897, –7 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2005). Etti argues that she too committed fraud merely to stay employed by Elder Care, not because she wanted to defraud the government. She emphasizes that she has been a law-abiding citizen, has no criminal history, and bore no leadership role in the scheme. She argues her sentence was not sufficiently different from that of Isidaehomen, who was more culpable yet received a sentence of 97 months, only 12 more months than Etti’s 85 months. The district court considered these arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in its analysis. Etti’s insistence that the district court should have balanced the factors differently does not demonstrate unreasonableness. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012). Etti also has not shown that the district court failed to consider a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Thus, she has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. AFFIRMED. 14