United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-30455 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WOODROW HAYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 5:05-CR-50045-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Woodrow Hayes appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire
fraud, and forfeiture. The charges relate to Hayes’s defrauding
a small order of nuns of over three million dollars and 86-year-old
Charles Lunan of approximately $800,000. Hayes does not challenge
the district court’s calculation of the advisory guideline range
but, for the first time on appeal, he challenges the reasonableness
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
of the district court’s deviation from that range to impose the
statutory maximum sentence of 300 months of imprisonment. Hayes
asserts that the court failed to account for mitigating factors,
such as his guilty plea and his cooperation in locating and for-
feiting assets. He also contends that the court failed to consider
whether the sentence imposed would result in a sentencing disparity
with other similarly situated defendants.
The district court specifically articulated sufficient reasons
for deviating from the guidelines, and those reasons are consistent
with the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hayes has not
shown that the court gave significant weight to an improper factor,
failed to account for a factor that should have received signifi-
cant weight, or clearly erred in balancing the sentencing factors.
See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006).
Hayes has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the
reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Jones, 444
F.3d 430, 433, 441-42 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2958
(2006).
AFFIRMED.