Filed: Apr. 11, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50405 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus YURIANA WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1935-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yuriana Williams appeals her
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50405 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus YURIANA WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1935-ALL - Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yuriana Williams appeals her t..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50405
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YURIANA WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1935-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Yuriana Williams appeals her total 37-month sentence imposed
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to import marijuana,
importation of marijuana, conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute
marijuana. Williams argues that her sentence is unreasonable
because the district court failed to account for her history and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-50405
-2-
characteristics in imposing sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1).
Under the discretionary sentencing scheme established by
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts
retain the duty to consider the Sentencing Guidelines along with
the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v.
Mares,
402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct.
43 (2005). Williams’s sentence is with the guidelines range and
is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo,
435 F.3d 551, 553-55 (5th Cir. 2006). We infer in our
reasonableness review that the district court considered
the § 3553(a) factors, including Williams’s history and
characteristics, in imposing sentence. See United States v.
Smith, ___ F.3d ___, No. 05-30313,
2006 WL 367011 at *2 (5th Cir.
Feb. 17, 2006);
Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554.
AFFIRMED.