USA v. Craft, No. 08-60132 (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. 08-60132 Summary Calendar August 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARL CRAFT Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:06-CR-154-16 Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carl Craft pleaded guilty to one count of possession of implements used to make counterfeit payroll checks. The district court imposed a non-guideline sentence of 60 months in prison, which was twice the advisory guidelines range maximum of 30 months. Craft argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record shows that the district court specifically considered Craft s criminal history, his victimization of vulnerable codefendants, the need to deter * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 08-60132 his future criminal conduct, the need to protect the public, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide a just punishment. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Craft because it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the extent of the variance was not unreasonable given the evidence before the district court. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 419 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 251-53 (5th Cir.), modified on reh g, 479 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2007). 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.