United States v. Pfund , 293 F. App'x 121 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-18-2008
USA v. Pfund
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4892
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Pfund" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 522.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/522
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-4892
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
NICOLE PFUND,
a/k/a KELLY LASEY,
a/k/a JAMIE HART,
a/k/a TABITHA RASTELLI,
a/k/a STACEY MONTY,
a/k/a DIANE COSTELLO,
a/k/a DANA EISENHOWER
Nicole Pfund, Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-00023)
District Judge: The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 9, 2008
BEFORE: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 18, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Nicole Pfund, pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, a violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1) and 2. She was sentenced to one hundred months’ imprisonment
and five years of supervised release. Pfund was also ordered to pay restitution in the
amount of $36,149.06 to her victims. She appeals her sentence as procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We will affirm.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a sentence for
reasonableness. The record on appeal indicates that the District Court reasonably
considered and applied the Section 3553(a) factors in determining Pfund’s sentence,
including her argument for a variance. The sentence imposed was within the range
suggested by the guidelines, notably at the low end of that range. Further, the District
Court made adequate findings on the record, reflecting its meaningful consideration of the
factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Having determined that the District Court gave “meaningful consideration” to the
relevant factors, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying
them to Pfund. United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006), cert.
denied, 127 S.Ct. 600 (2006). The District Court's sentence was within the Guidelines
2
range for the offense level to which Pfund agreed, and the District Court clearly
articulated its reasons for sentencing Pfund. Accordingly, we reject Pfund’s claim that
the sentence imposed was unreasonable and will affirm the District Court.
3