USA v. Sinegal, No. 05-30704 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 20, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-30704 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSIE E. SINEGAL, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:00-CR-60006 -------------------Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The district court revoked Josie E. Sinegal s probation and sentenced her to serve four years in prison. sentence. Sinegal appeals her She argues that her sentence is unreasonable because it exceeded the advisory guideline range, because her violations did not warrant such a harsh sentence, and because the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence. She requests that this court vacate her sentence and remand the case for resentencing. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. We have yet to decide whether revocation sentences imposed following the release of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard or the plainly unreasonable standard. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Nevertheless, resolution of this issue is not needed to dispose of this appeal because Sinegal has not shown that she should prevail under either standard. See id. Sinegal s sentence exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence but not the pertinent statutory maximum sentence. demonstrates that sentencing factors. (5th Cir. 2006). the Further, a review of the record district court considered the relevant See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 Consequently, the sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable, and 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.
