United States v. Davis , 84 F. App'x 449 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 January 6, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-50719
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    TONIA ANISSIA DAVIS, also known as Tonia Davis,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. W-02-CR-66-3
    --------------------
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Tonia Anissia Davis appeals the sentence imposed following her
    guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to make, utter, and possess
    a counterfeit United States Security in violation of
    18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 513(a).   We review the district court’s findings
    of fact at sentencing for clear error, and its application of
    the sentencing guidelines de novo.   United States v. Anderson, 
    174 F.3d 515
    , 524 (5th Cir. 1999).
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50719
    -2-
    Davis argues that the district court erred in finding that all
    of the checks seized were passable when determining the total
    amount of the loss involved in this case.           With respect to all
    of the checks, except for one, check number 87561466, payable to
    Velma Ervin in the amount of $1,395.20, Davis has not shown that
    the district court clearly erred in finding them to be passable.
    See 
    Anderson, 174 F.3d at 524
    .      Whether the district court erred in
    finding the $1,395.20 check to be passable is arguable.          However,
    even   assuming    error,   such   error   is   harmless   because   Davis’
    guideline imprisonment range would have remained the same and there
    is no indication in the record that the specific amount of the loss
    within the applicable range of loss affected the district court’s
    selection of the 18-month sentence imposed. See Williams v. United
    States, 
    503 U.S. 193
    , 203 (1992).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-50719

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 449

Judges: Barksdale, Garza, Dennis

Filed Date: 1/6/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024