United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-30280
c/w No. 06-30338
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEVIN L. COOLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:05-CR-20057
USDC No. 2:04-CR-20115-5
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin L. Cooley appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to
interfere with commerce by robbery, interference with commerce by
robbery, and two counts of using, carrying, possessing, and
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The district
court sentenced Cooley to 60 months for the conspiracy offense
and 125 months for the robbery offense, to run concurrently; and
seven years for one firearm offense and 25 years for the other
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-30280
c/w No. 06-30338
-2-
firearm offense, to run consecutive to each other and to the
other sentences.
The Government contends that we lack jurisdiction to
review Cooley’s appeal of the district court’s denial of the
Government’s motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). To the extent that Cooley is
appealing the denial of the Government’s motion, we do not have
jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion. See United
States v. Hernandez 457 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2006).
Cooley argues that his sentence was the result of both an
upward and a downward departure. He argues that the sentence was
unreasonable and that an upward departure was not warranted
because the Guidelines fully accounted for the economic loss,
the use of firearms, and the number of victims and because his
criminal history category does not understate the seriousness of
his criminal history. The sentence imposed by the district court
was within the applicable guideline range and was not the result
of an upward departure. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d
704, 706-07 (5th Cir. 2006) (recognizing three types of
sentences: sentence within the guideline range, departure from
guideline range as allowed by Guidelines, and non-guideline
sentence). The district court gave detailed reasons for the
sentence it imposed, including Cooley’s significant criminal
history; the nature and circumstances of the offenses which
involved extreme violence, firearms, multiple victims, and
No. 06-30280
c/w No. 06-30338
-3-
significant economic loss to the victims; and Cooley’s
involvement in other offenses not considered as part of the
multiple offender adjudication. The district court properly
calculated the applicable guideline sentencing range and
considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-20
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Therefore,
Cooley has not shown that the sentence imposed by the district
court was unreasonable. See id. at 518-20.
AFFIRMED.