USA v. Mauricio Ruiz-Duron

Filing

USA v. Mauricio Ruiz-Duron

Doc. 0

Case: 09-20773

Document: 00511183595

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/23/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20773 S u m m a r y Calendar July 23, 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. M A U R I C I O ALEXANDER RUIZ-DURON, also known as Mauricio Alexander R u iz , also known as Mauricio Ruiz, 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. 4:08-CR-758-1

B e fo r e SMITH, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M a u r ic io Alexander Ruiz-Duron (Ruiz) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry fo llo w in g deportation. The district court imposed a within-guidelines range s e n te n c e of 43 months in prison. Ruiz appeals the sentence imposed, arguing t h a t the district court committed procedural error by failing to sufficiently e x p la in its reasons for rejecting his request for a downward variance from 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-20773

Document: 00511183595 Page: 2 No. 09-20773

Date Filed: 07/23/2010

a p p li c a b le sentencing range. s u b s t a n t iv e ly unreasonable.

He also contends that the sentence was

" [W ]h e n a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular c a s e , doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation." Rita v. United S ta te s , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The requirement that the district court explain it s sentence may be satisfied if the district court listens to arguments and then in d ic a te s that a sentence within the guidelines range is appropriate. Id. at 3575 9 . The record shows that the district court heard Ruiz's arguments, rejected t h o s e arguments, and stated that a sentence within the applicable guidelines r a n g e satisfied the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, the district c o u r t's explanation of the sentence imposed, while brief, was legally sufficient. See id. at 358-59. " A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines r a n g e is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F .3 d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The fact that this court "might reasonably have c o n c lu d e d that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify r e v e r s a l of the district court." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We c o n c lu d e there is "no reason to disturb" the presumption of reasonableness in t h is case. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2