USA v. Hayes, No. 06-31259 (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 August 16, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-31259 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARDAL HAYES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-CR-227-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Cardal Hayes entered a guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Hayes asserts that the district court s upward deviation from the advisory sentencing range of 24 to 30 months was not proper or reasonable. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-31259 The record reflects that the district court calculated the applicable guidelines range, used that range as a frame of reference, and decided to upwardly deviate from that range. The district court addressed the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and cited fact specific reasons for the imposition of Hayes s sentence. See United States v. Tzep-Majia, 461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court s consideration of victim impact was not in error. See United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 250 (5th Cir.), opinion modified, 479 F.3d 904 (2006). Because the district court did not fail to account for a factor which should have received significant weight, give significant weight to an improper factor, or make a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors, Hayes s sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-09 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the district court s judgment 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.