USA v. Broome, No. 07-11225 (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. 07-11225 Summary Calendar August 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. PARNELL TOMMYLEE BROOME, JR Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-224-ALL Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Parnell Tommylee Broome, Jr., was convicted of one count of bank robbery and was sentenced to serve 169 months in prison. Broome appeals his sentence. Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), when * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-11225 fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). When reviewing a sentence, we typically consider whether the district court committed significant procedural error at sentencing and 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. Broome argues that the district court committed procedural error at sentencing by starting at the top of the applicable guidelines range when choosing his sentence. Our examination of the record shows no significant procedural error in connection with Broome s sentence. judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 Accordingly, the

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.