United States v. Sandra Tyler , 487 F. App'x 276 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 12a1064n.06
    No. 11-2436                                    FILED
    Oct 10, 2012
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                            )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                           )       ON APPEAL FROM THE
    )       UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    v.                                                   )       COURT FOR THE WESTERN
    )       DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
    SANDRA TYLER,                                        )
    )
    Defendant-Appellant.                          )
    BEFORE: SUTTON and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; WELLS, District Judge.*
    PER CURIAM. Sandra Tyler, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed by the district
    court following her guilty plea to charges of making false entries and reports, misappropriation of
    postal funds, and mail fraud.
    Tyler was an employee of the postal service for twenty-five years. Over a ten month period,
    on approximately fifty occasions, she filled out false refund forms, forged the signatures of some
    regular customers, and took the money for her own use. This resulted in a loss to the postal service
    of approximately $20,000.00. After she was fired, approximately $9,000.00 more in losses was
    caused by Tyler’s filing of a false claim for unemployment benefits, in which she denied that she had
    stolen the original amount and maintained that she did not know why she had been discharged.
    *
    The Honorable Lesley Wells, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
    Ohio, sitting by designation.
    No. 11-2436
    United States v. Tyler
    After accepting Tyler’s guilty plea, the district court held a sentencing hearing, at which it
    determined that the guidelines sentencing range was eight to fourteen months. However, the district
    court found that the other sentencing factors, particularly those of promoting respect for the law and
    deterrence, justified an upward variance to twenty-four months. On appeal, Tyler argues that her
    sentence is unreasonably long because of the percentage increase over the guidelines range.
    We review criminal sentences for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall
    v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). There is no presumption that a sentence outside the
    guidelines range is unreasonable. Id.; United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 
    601 F.3d 629
    , 633 (6th Cir.
    2010). Nor do we apply a rigid mathematical formula using the percentage of departure from the
    guidelines range. See United States v. Richards, 
    659 F.3d 527
    , 550 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 2726
     (2012).
    Review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court correctly calculated the
    guidelines range and then discussed the other sentencing factors, particularly the seriousness of the
    offense, Tyler’s apparent lack of respect for the law, and the need for deterrence. The district court
    also noted Tyler’s history, including her dysfunctional childhood, mental health issues, and lack of
    criminal history. Where the court clearly considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant
    sentencing factors, no abuse of discretion is apparent. See United States v. Tate, 
    516 F.3d 459
    , 470-
    71 (6th Cir. 2008). No argument has been presented that would justify substituting our judgment
    for the judgment of the sentencing court. Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    ; United States v. Collington, 
    461 F.3d 805
    , 811 (6th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2436

Citation Numbers: 487 F. App'x 276

Judges: Griffin, Per Curiam, Sutton, Wells

Filed Date: 10/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023