United States v. Buckholt

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50118
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TAMATHA BUCKHOLT, also known as Tammy Lynette Buckholt, also known
as Tammy L. Buckholt, also known as Tammy Lynnette Buckholt, also known
as T. Buckholt,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CR-536-6

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Tamatha Buckholt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud to
defraud financial institutions and mortgage companies, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and was sentenced to two years of
probation. Two motions to revoke her probation were filed, and she was
sentenced to additional terms of probation. At her third revocation hearing,

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 25, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50118 Document: 00515358413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2020

No. 19-50118
2
the district court revoked her probation and sentenced her to 10 years of
imprisonment, just below her original guidelines imprisonment range. This
appeal followed.
Buckholt now argues that her revocation sentence was procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. The record demonstrates that the district court
considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, implicitly considered relevant
sentencing factors (e.g., the nature and circumstances of Buckholt’s probation
violations, her personal history and characteristics, and the need to afford
adequate deterrence and provide needed correctional treatment), and
articulated a general basis for its decision to impose a sentence above the
recommended range. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir.
1997); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). Further,
Buckholt cannot demonstrate that any purported error affected her substantial
rights because she has not demonstrated “a reasonable probability that, but
for the district court’s error, [she] would have received a lesser sentence.”
United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010).
As to substantive reasonableness, the district court relied on appropriate
sentencing factors in determining that a 10-year sentence was warranted, as
it addressed the nature and circumstances of Buckholt’s probation violation,
her history and characteristics, and the need to deter her from future criminal
activity and provide her with needed correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-08 (5th Cir. 2006).
Contrary to Buckholt’s assertions, the record demonstrates that the district
court considered her assistance to the Government. Further, the court could
have determined that the previous motions to revoke probation had not
deterred her from violating probation and committing additional offenses.
Accordingly, Buckholt fails to demonstrate an abuse of the district court’s wide
Case: 19-50118 Document: 00515358413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2020

No. 19-50118
3
sentencing discretion. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir.
2013); United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50118 Document: 00515358413 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2020