United States v. Craft

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
February 11, 2009
No. 08-10259
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARRIE RENE CRAFT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-144-1

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carrie Rene Craft appeals from the sentence imposed following her guilty-
plea conviction for possession of counterfeit obligations of the United States. She
argues that her sentence was unreasonable because, in light of the mitigating
factors at issue in her case, the imposed term of imprisonment was greater than
necessary to achieve the objectives set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As she
argued in the district court prior to sentencing, Craft asserts on appeal that she
merits leniency because she provided assistance to the authorities immediately

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 08-10259

upon her arrest and because her assistance led to the arrest of her
codefendant/husband. The district court explicitly noted before imposing Craft’s
sentence that it had considered Craft’s arguments as to mitigating factors, as
well as the § 3553(a) factors.
We consider Craft’s argument as to the substantive reasonableness of her
sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Also,
because Craft’s sentence was imposed within a properly calculated Guidelines
range, it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); Rita v. United States, 127 S.
Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). After reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed, we hold that Craft’s appellate arguments fail to establish that
her sentence was unreasonable. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED

2