United States v. Braslau

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-41427
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTT RONALD BRASLAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-03-CR-105-1
--------------------
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Scott Ronald Braslau (Braslau) appeals his sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for one count of theft of
United States mail, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. Braslau
argues that the district court erred by relying on improper
factors when it departed upward on the ground that his criminal
history category under-represented the seriousness of his
criminal history. Specifically, Braslau contends that the
district court improperly departed because it did not personally

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-41427
-2-
agree with the applicable guidelines. Braslau further argues
that the district court improperly focused on the number of prior
convictions, rather than their nature, in deciding to depart
upward. Lastly, Braslau contends that the district court did not
state its reasons on the record for rejecting intermediate base-
offense levels. For these reasons, Braslau requests this court
to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
The district court gave acceptable reasons for its
departure, and the extent of the departure was reasonable. See
United States v. Rosogie, 21 F.3d 632, 633-634 (5th Cir. 1994).
Although the district court’s reasons for rejecting the
intervening levels could have been more explicit, the record
presents a sufficient basis upon which this court may reasonably
conclude that the district court throughly considered the
appropriate guidelines in arriving at its ultimate sentence. See
United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993).
Because the district court did not plainly err in upwardly
departing, Braslau’s sentence is AFFIRMED. See United States v.
Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --