USA v. Brandy Rogers, No. 12-30650 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30650 Summary Calendar March 8, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BRANDY Z. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:11-CR-233-1 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brandy Rogers pleaded guilty of embezzlement of bank funds and was sentenced within the guideline range to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. She * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2013 No. 12-30650 appeals, arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account that she is the primary caregiver for her two sons, both of whom have special medical needs, and because a withinguideline sentence is not necessary to deter her or protect the public from further criminal conduct. She also urges that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the restitution order, because she is unable to make restitution while incarcerated. A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Mere disagreement with the propriety of the sentence or the weight given to the ยง 3553(a) factors is not enough to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guideline sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court was aware of the mitigating factors pointed to by Rogers but gave more weight to the seriousness of the offense, particularly its nature and characteristics. Rogers has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to her within-guideline sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186; Ruiz, 621 F.3d at 398. The judgment of sentence 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.
