USA v. Eric Hernandez-Puentes

Filing

USA v. Eric Hernandez-Puentes

Doc. 0

Case: 09-11204

Document: 00511216251

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-11204 S u m m a r y Calendar August 26, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. E R I C HERNANDEZ-PUENTES, also known as Eddy Hernandez, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 5:09-CR-49-1

B e fo r e KING, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges P E R CURIAM:* E r ic Hernandez-Puentes (Hernandez) appeals his sentence of 30 months o f imprisonment, following his guilty plea conviction to illegal reentry into the U n ite d States. He argues, as he did in the district court, that the sentence, w h ic h exceeded the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. S e n t e n c e s are reviewed for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated r e v ie w . Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

C is n e r o s -G u tie r r e z , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Hernandez does not argue
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-11204

Document: 00511216251 Page: 2 No. 09-11204

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

t h a t the district court committed any procedural error; thus, we need only review t h e substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. H e r n a n d e z argues that his above-guidelines sentence is substantively u n r e a s o n a b le because the advisory guidelines range adequately accounted for h is prior criminal history, including the nature and recency of his past crimes. The Supreme Court, however, has "implicitly rejected the position that no a d d it io n a l weight could be given to factors included in calculating the applicable a d v is o r y Guidelines range, since to do otherwise would essentially render the G u id e lin e s mandatory." United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). Moreover, the district court's oral and written reasons reflect that the c o u r t considered the guidelines; the policy statements; and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense of c o n v ic t io n , Hernandez's history and characteristics, and the need for the s e n te n c e to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public from further c r im i n a l conduct by Hernandez. The district court noted that Hernandez's c r im in a l history reflected several crimes which were not included in the g u id e lin e s calculations and which, as a whole, reflected that Hernandez had a la c k of respect for the law. I n sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence im p o s e d "was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors". U n ite d States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation o m it t e d ); see also United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (upholding an upward variance based on the nature and characteristics o f the defendant and his criminal history). A F F IR M E D .

2