USA v. Jose Espinoza

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-20745 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES. Mandate pull date is 10/15/2010 for Appellant Jose Vargas Espinoza [09-20745]

USA v. Jose Espinoza

Doc. 0

Case: 09-20745

Document: 00511244486

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20745 S u m m a r y Calendar September 24, 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. J O S E VARGAS ESPINOZA, also known as Jose Vargas Espinosa, also known a s Jose Vargas-Espinosa, also known as Jose Vargies, also known as Jose E s p in o s a , also known as Jose Espinosa Vargas, 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 Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:09-CR-238-1

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o s e Vargas Espinoza was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the U n ite d States, and the district court sentenced him to serve 76 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he argues that his w i t h in -g u id e lin e s sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly weigh his mitigating evidence concerning his reasons for

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-20745

Document: 00511244486 Page: 2 No. 09-20745

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

returning to this country, gave too much weight to his criminal history, and failed to properly account for the fact that many of his prior offenses were due to his drug addiction. We disagree with these arguments, and our review of the record and p e r t in e n t jurisprudence shows no abuse of discretion in connection with the s e n te n c e imposed. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5 t h Cir. 2009). T h e appellant's arguments concerning the reasonableness vel non of his s e n te n c e amount to a disagreement with the district court's weighing of certain s e n te n c in g factors and the appropriateness of the within-guidelines sentence im p o s e d . This disagreement does not suffice to show error in connection with t h e sentence imposed. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5 t h Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F .3 d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). This disagreement likewise does not suffice to r e b u t the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to the within-guidelines s e n te n c e . See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). The ju d g m e n t of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2