USA v. Kali Lord, No. 18-10387 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10387 Document: 00514735529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-10387 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KALI LORD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:17-CR-57-1 Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kali Lord appeals the 57-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. She argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the reason for the sentence in light of the nonfrivolous arguments she presented in favor of a lower sentence. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-10387 Document: 00514735529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2018 No. 18-10387 We review Lord’s arguments for plain error. See United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Lord must show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error that affected her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if she succeeds, this court will correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id. The district court’s justification for imposing the particular terms of imprisonment and supervised release in this case implicitly acknowledged that Lord made 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) arguments, and the court rejected them. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362–63 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, there is no clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Further, her speculative arguments that the court likely would have imposed a lower sentence had it given more explanation fails to show an effect on substantial rights. See, e.g., Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65. AFFIRMED. 2