USA v. Sheppard, No. 07-11147 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-11147 Summary Calendar August 26, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KRISTINA MARIE SHEPPARD Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-80-ALL Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Kristina Marie Sheppard was convicted of one count of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and was sentenced to serve 16 months in prison. Sheppard appeals her sentence. Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain the duty to calculate properly and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, along with the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-11147 sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). When we review a sentence, we typically consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error at sentencing and, if not, whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 597 (2007). Further, the district court s sentencing decision is ultimately reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 594. Sheppard argues that the district court erred by adjusting her offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2 based on its determination that Officer Kernell was an official victim of the offense. Our examination of the record reveals no significant procedural error and nothing unreasonable in Sheppard s sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.