USA v. Gallegos

Filing 920090608


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50771 Summary Calendar June 8, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GERMAN GALLEGOS Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-cr-03268 Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* German Gallegos appeals his below-guidelines sentence of 240 months of imprisonment following his conviction for importing 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession of 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 952(a). He argues that the downward variance by the district court, from a guidelines range of imprisonment of 262 to 327 months, insufficiently accounts for Gallegos's difficult childhood and continuing mental illness, and is unreasonable. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-50771 In exercising its discretion, the district court appropriately considered the advisory sentencing guidelines and the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007). The district court determined that imposition of the career offender enhancement resulted in a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of punishment and that the 240-month term of imprisonment appropriately accounted for Gallegos's personal history and characteristics, as well as his criminal history. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 602. Gallegos has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or that his sentence is unreasonable. See id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

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?