
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jennifer Templin KINABREW, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10548
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 29, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Monica F. Markley, Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Templin Kinabrew pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with access devices. The district court varied or der parted upward from the guidelines imprisonment range in sentencing Kinabrew to a 72-month term of imprisonment. Kinabrew contends that the sentence was predicated improperly on the erroneous and unsupported finding that the sentences imposed for eight of her prior convictions were unusually lenient. This contention is without merit.

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), sentences are reviewed for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)).

The record reflects that, in varying from the guidelines imprisonment range, the district court was concerned with the persistence and escalating level of Kinabrew’s criminality. It expressly considered the statutory sentencing factors of punishment, deterrence, and protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court “owes deference to the district court’s determination of the appropriate sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008). Kinabrew cannot show that the district court abused its discretion in varying upward from the guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The judgment is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     