USA v. Mauricio
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 05-41617 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARCO MAURICIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (4:04-CR-180-ALL)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Marco Mauricio, having pleaded guilty to 14 counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, challenges the
reasonableness of his sentence, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (requiring, inter alia,
"reasonableness" review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). After offense-level
adjustments for amount of loss and acceptance of responsibility, his offense level was 12, with an advisory Guidelines range of 10-
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
16 months imprisonment.
The imposed 24-month sentence was eight
months above the high end of this range. "Where, as here, a district court imposes a post-Booker non-Guidelines sentence--that is, one that deviates either above or below the relevant Guidelines sentence as opposed to departing with reference to an applicable Guidelines departure provision--we
conduct our reasonableness review through an abuse-of-discretion lens, paying particular attention to the specific reasons given for deviating from the Guidelines." F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2006). United States v. Armendariz, 451 A non-Guidelines sentence is
unreasonable if it does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or is the result of clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court based its deviation from the high end of the advisory sentencing range (deviation) on factors set forth in § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for deterrence and to promote respect for the law, the seriousness of the offense, the kind of sentences available, and the Guidelines range. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1)-(4).
Mauricio has not shown that the district court failed to account for a factor that should have received significant weight,
that the district court gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or that it was the result of clear error in balancing the sentencing factors. Accordingly, reasonable. the See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708. sentence was
See id. at 707-08. AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?