United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10823
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD STREICHER ROTHROCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:06-CR-18-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edward Streicher Rothrock appeals his guilty-plea conviction
and 71-months sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). Rothrock claims his sentence is unreasonable because it
inadequately considers: his history and circumstances; the need to
promote rehabilitation; and, the limited need to protect the public
in the light of his lack of recent criminal activity. The district
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
court sentenced Rothrock within a properly calculated advisory
Guidelines range. Such a sentence is afforded “great deference”.
United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, the district court stated that it considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors when determining the sentence.
In sum, Rothrock fails to show his sentence was unreasonable.
E.g., United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
For the first time on appeal, Rothrock contends the sentence
is unreasonable because the district court overemphasized the
Guidelines to the exclusion of other considerations mandated by §
3553. This contention is unsupported by the record. In any event,
there is no plain error.
Rothrock finally claims the district court exceeded its
authority by ordering his federal sentence to run consecutively to
a not-yet-imposed state sentence (pending on a motion to revoke
probation). As Rothrock concedes, this argument is foreclosed by
our precedent. See United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17
(5th Cir. 1991). (Moreover, after his federal sentence was
imposed, the state court denied the motion to revoke probation.)
AFFIRMED
2