USA v. Guzman-Guzman

Filing 920061025

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50492 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAURICIO GUZMAN-GUZMAN, also known as Mauricio Garcia-Guzman, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-1 -------------------Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mauricio Guzman-Guzman (Guzman) pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. The district court deviated from the guideline range by 12 months in sentencing Guzman to a 69-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. timely notice of his appeal. Guzman contends that the district court erred in deviating upward from the guideline imprisonment range. v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). * Guzman gave See United States "A non-Guideline 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-50492 - 2 sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors." Id. at 708. Guzman complains that the district court failed to express the reasons for its sentence in writing, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). This contention is not supported by the record. Written reasons were provided and put under seal. Guzman contends that the 12-month deviation created an unwarranted sentencing disparity between Guzman and defendants with similar records who were found guilty of similar conduct. Guzman complains that one of his codefendants, Leonel GuzmanGuzman (Leonel Guzman), was sentenced within the guidelines range. Because Leonel Guzman was not similarly situated, it was reasonable for the district court to sentence Leonel Guzman within the guideline range but to deviate from the Guidelines in sentencing Guzman. See United States v. Duhon, 440 F.3d 711, 720­21 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (May 18, 2006). Guzman also complains that his codefendant, Pascual ZapataTorres (Zapata), had a significantly more serious criminal history category of VI and that Zapata's behavior was particularly cruel and abusive, but that the district court departed downward in sentencing Zapata because Zapata rendered substantial assistance to the Government. As Guzman concedes, No. 05-50492 - 3 this court has recognized the provision of substantial assistance to the Government as a legitimate reason for distinguishing between defendants. AFFIRMED. See Duhon, 440 F.3d at 720­21.

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?