USA v. Corona-Durango
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
No. 07-10857 Summary Calendar
March 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARCEL CORONA-DURANGO Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-4-ALL
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Marcel Corona-Durango was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 36 months in prison. He now appeals his
sentence, which exceeds the advisory guidelines range, and argues that it is unreasonable and that the district court committed several errors when formulating his sentence. Corona-Durango contends that the district court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history, did not give proper consideration to the guidelines sentencing range, improperly balanced the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-10857 sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, did not give due consideration to the relative seriousness of his offense, and did not consider whether a sentence of probation would result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Because CoronaDurango did not raise these specific claims of error in the district court, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2007). Corona-Durango has shown no error, plain or otherwise, in connection with his sentence. To the contrary, our review of the record shows that the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The judgment of the district court is 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?