United States v. Stanphill, 118 F. App'x 860 (5th Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Stanphill, 118 F. App'x 860 (5th Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Debbie STANPHILL, Defendant-Appellant
04-60451.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 30, 2004.
Unpublished opinion
118 F. App'x 860
Robert Willie Coleman, II, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee., William Cullen Stennett, Jimmy D. Shelton & Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Defendanb-Appellant.
King, Jones, Dennis.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Debbie Stanphill appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of her probation. She argues that the district court erred in departing upward from the sentencing guideline range of three to nine months. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7Bl.l(a)(3), 7B1.4(a).

Considering that Stanphill’s sentence for the offense of conviction was the result of a downward departure, an upward departure was authorized. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment, (n.4). The district court appropriately considered Stanphill’s need for drug treatment, and the 36-month sentence was well below the statutory maximum imprisonment term of 20 years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 286-87 (5th Cir.1997). The sentence was therefore legal. See Pena, 125 F.3d at 288. The district court did not plainly err or abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined, that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.