United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60395
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE W. HOOD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:04-CR-56-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant George W. Hood, Jr. was convicted after a
jury trial of mail fraud (counts 1-10), securities fraud (counts
11-14), conspiracy to commit money laundering (count 15), and money
laundering (counts 16-18, 31-34). He was sentenced to 60 months of
imprisonment on counts 11 through 14 and 70 months of imprisonment
on each of the remaining counts, all of which were to run
concurrently; three years of supervised release on each count, to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
run concurrently; $2.45 million in restitution; and a $2,200
special assessment.
On appeal, Hood contends that the evidence was insufficient to
show either that he had the requisite intent to commit any of the
offenses or that, in the case of the conspiracy count, he agreed
with others to defraud investors. When the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, it is sufficient to
support Hood’s convictions on all counts. See United States v.
Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995).
Hood also asserts that the district court erred in sentencing
him by improperly calculating (1) the number of victims when it
increased his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) (2) the loss amount when it increased his offense
level by 16 levels pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I). The court did not
clearly err in determining the loss amounts, because Hood
reasonably should have foreseen that the assessed losses involving
more than 10 victims would occur. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment.
(n.2(A)); United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir.
2000).
Hood additionally maintains that the district court failed to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when determining his term
of imprisonment. Hood contends that the district court failed
adequately to consider (1) the disparity of his and his co-
conspirator’s sentences, (2) his good reputation in the community,
(3) the effect of the length of his sentence on his ability to pay
2
$2.45 million in restitution, (4) the fact that he did not gain
exorbitant profits, (5) his lack of criminal history and his good
character, (6) the unlikelihood that he would commit criminal
offenses in the future, and (7) the fact that he was not a danger
to society.
As Hood’s sentence is within —— or, in the case of counts 11
through 14, which had a statutory maximum sentence of 60 months of
imprisonment, below —— a properly calculated guideline range of 70
to 87 months of imprisonment, we infer that the district court
considered all of the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the
Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). “[A] sentence within a
properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.”
United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Hood
has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines
sentence was unreasonable. See id.; Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.
AFFIRMED.
3