Filed: Nov. 26, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 26, 2007 No. 07-50140 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JIM DANIEL THOMPSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-244-ALL Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jim Daniel Thompson appeals his sentence for possessing wit
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 26, 2007 No. 07-50140 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JIM DANIEL THOMPSON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-244-ALL Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jim Daniel Thompson appeals his sentence for possessing with..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 26, 2007
No. 07-50140
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JIM DANIEL THOMPSON
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:06-CR-244-ALL
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jim Daniel Thompson appeals his sentence for possessing with intent to
distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. He was sentenced above his 92-
to 115-month guideline range to 150 months of imprisonment. He argues that
the district court, misapplying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), imposed an unreasonable
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
No. 07-50140
Citing Thompson’s extensive criminal history, his lack of respect for the
law, the need to deter him from future criminal conduct, and the need to protect
the public, the district court did not misapply § 3553(a). See United States v.
Zuniga-Peralta,
442 F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2006). Thompson has not shown
that his sentence is unreasonable. See
id. (affirming upward departure to 60-
month sentence where maximum guideline range sentence was 33 months);
accord United States v. Smith,
417 F.3d 483, 485-86 (5th Cir. 2005) (affirming
upward departure to 120-month sentence where maximum guideline range
sentence was 41 months).
AFFIRMED.
2