United States v. Dold , 187 F. App'x 420 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT June 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-10395 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD THOMAS DOLD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(5:04-CR-91-ALL-C)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edward Thomas Dold pleaded guilty to one charge of engaging in
monetary transactions derived from unlawful activity. He was
sentenced, inter alia, to serve 120 months in prison.
Dold claims the district court reversibly erred by upwardly
departing at sentencing. Because he did not object in district
court, we review only for plain error. E.g., United States v.
Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2006). No authority need be
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
cited for the plain–error factors, one of which is “clear” or
“obvious” error.
His contention that the decision to depart was based on
improper factors lacks merit. The court gave extensive reasons for
that decision, including the extreme psychological trauma caused to
the victims of the offense and the sentencing factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Its remarks at sentencing show the departure was
based on valid grounds. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3; United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43(2005).
Dold maintains his sentence is unreasonable because it differs
from that given to another defendant fails. A similarly situated
defendant’s receiving a different sentence is insufficient to show
Dold’s sentence was unreasonable. See United States v. Smith, 440
F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006).
Dold’s claim that the court did not give an adequate
explanation for its choice of sentence and did not commit this
explanation to paper is refuted by the record. See id. at 707; see
also United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 416-17 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1911 (2006). And, contrary to
Dold’s assertions, the magnitude of the departure was not
unreasonable. See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 713 (2005); Jones, 444 F.3d at 433.
2
Dold has not shown error. Therefore, he obviously fails to
show the requisite plain error.
AFFIRMED
3