United States v. Kelli Bullard ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-10056        Document: 00515553924             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/04/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 4, 2020
    No. 20-10056                                Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                                   Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Kelli Renee Bullard, also known as Kelli Henager, also known
    as Kelli Peterka,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:19-CR-221-1
    Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Kelli Renee Bullard pleaded guilty to one count of student financial-
    aid fraud, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a). The District Court sentenced
    *
    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    not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 20-10056       Document: 00515553924          Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/04/2020
    No. 20-10056
    her to, inter alia, a within-Guidelines sentence of 60-months’ imprisonment.
    Bullard challenges only the substantive reasonableness of her sentence,
    claiming the district court did not properly balance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
    sentencing factors in reaching its decision. Bullard contends the court
    focused too much on her offense and criminal history, ignoring the mitigating
    circumstances of her personal growth and rehabilitation efforts. Her claim
    fails.
    Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
    the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
    calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
    objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
    under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
    Id. at 51;
    United States v. Delgado-
    Martinez, 
    564 F.3d 750
    , 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
    preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de
    novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
    Gutierrez, 
    517 F.3d 751
    , 764 (5th Cir. 2008). As stated, only substantive
    reasonableness is at issue.
    Bullard’s sentence is within the Guidelines sentencing range and is
    therefore entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United
    States v. Cooks, 
    589 F.3d 173
    , 186 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). To rebut
    the presumption, Bullard must show “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
    2
    Case: 20-10056     Document: 00515553924           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/04/2020
    No. 20-10056
    balancing sentencing factors”.
    Id. (citation omitted). For
    obvious reasons,
    our review is highly deferential to the district court’s balancing of the
    § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Simpson, 
    796 F.3d 548
    , 557 (5th Cir. 2015)
    (citing United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 
    531 F.3d 337
    , 339 (5th Cir. 2008)).
    At Bullard’s sentencing hearing, the district court considered
    Bullard’s assertions and supporting evidence regarding her personal growth
    and rehabilitation. The court balanced these mitigating circumstances with
    the § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that, although an upward variance from
    the Guidelines range would be warranted, a within-Guidelines sentence of 60
    months’ imprisonment was appropriate because of Bullard’s mitigating
    circumstances. Bullard’s assertions regarding the court’s weighing of the
    § 3553(a) factors amount to a mere disagreement, which is insufficient to
    rebut the presumption of reasonableness for a within-Guidelines sentence.
    See, e.g., United States v. Ruiz, 
    621 F.3d 390
    , 398 (5th Cir. 2010) (“A
    defendant's disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed does
    not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a
    within-guidelines sentence.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    3