United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 12, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-50521 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM PAUL SHAVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 6:05-CR-148-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Shaver pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement
to theft of mail matter (Count 1), altering a financial obligation
(Count 2), possessing counterfeit obligations (Count 3), and access
device fraud (Count 4). The district court sentenced him to 60
months of imprisonment as to Count 1, and it upwardly departed from
the guidelines range to sentence him to 120 months of imprisonment
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
No. 06-50521
-2-
as to Counts 2, 3, and 4, with all of the sentences running
concurrently.
Shaver argues for the first time on appeal that the court
plainly erred in failing to give him reasonable notice that it was
contemplating an upward departure and in failing to provide the
particular grounds on which such a departure would be based. Be-
cause, however, the presentence report (“PSR”) provided Shaver with
adequate information to give him an opportunity to comment on the
upward departure, the court did not plainly err. See United States
v. Milton, 147 F.3d 414, 420-21 (5th Cir. 1998).
Shaver contends the court erred in failing to provide specific
written reasons for its upward departure as is required by required
by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). But, the court’s written statement of
the guideline section pursuant to which it upwardly departed, for-
tified by more specific statements in the PSR and at sentencing
concerning the facts of the case and the reasons for the departure,
satisfied § 3553(c)(2). See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442
F.3d 345, 347-49 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2954 (2006).
AFFIRMED.