USA v. Frank, No. 06-30339 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30339 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JIMMY LEE FRANK, also known as Jimmie, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (2:04-CR-20115-3) Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Having pleaded guilty, Jimmy Lee Frank sentence, including 55-years imprisonment, for: challenges his conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2; interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 2; and a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2. Pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), post-Booker sentences are reviewed for reasonableness , guided by * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). E.g., United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). In that regard, a district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear error; its interpretation and application of the Guidelines, de novo. E.g., United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Frank contests his Guideline s § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) offense-level enhancement, applicable if a person was physically restrained to facilitate commission of the offense or to facilitate escape . He claims reversible error because the victims of the robbery of a casino were not tied, bound, or locked up. The presentence investigation report stated that Frank and his codefendants escorted a security guard and several casino employees to the casino manager s office at gunpoint and instructed them not to leave. Accordingly, the enhancement was applicable. See United States v. Hickman, 151 F.3d 446, 460-61 (5th Cir. 1998), reinstated, in relevant part on reh g en banc, 179 F.3d 230, 231 (5th Cir. 1999). Frank also unreasonable. contends Where, his as above-the-guidelines here, a district sentence court imposes is a post-Booker non-Guidelines sentence that is, one that deviates ... above ... the relevant Guidelines sentence as opposed to departing with reference to an applicable Guidelines departure provision we conduct our reasonableness 2 review through an abuse-of-discretion lens, paying particular attention specific reasons given for deviating from the Guidelines. to the United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2006). Frank s sentence was properly based on the district court s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including: the nature and circumstances of the instant offense; Frank s history and characteristics; the need to promote respect for the law; and the need to protect the public from Frank s further crimes (in the factual stipulation for his guilty plea, he admitted: to joining a conspiracy to commit armed robberies of approximately 17 truckstop casinos; and to participating in two armed robberies of casinos). See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-10 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED 3
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.
