USA v. Armando Jimenez-Orozco

Filing

USA v. Armando Jimenez-Orozco

Doc. 0

Case: 09-50514

Document: 00511205582

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50514 C o n fe r e n c e Calendar August 17, 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. A R M A N D O JIMENEZ-OROZCO, 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 Western District of Texas U S D C No. 2:08-CR-651-1

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A r m a n d o Jimenez-Orozco (Jimenez) appeals from his 57-month sentence fo r illegal reentry; his sentence fell at the bottom of the guidelines range. He a r g u e s that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to e x p la in its reasons for denying his request for a below-guidelines sentence. B e c a u s e Jimenez did not object to his sentence in the district court, we r e v ie w for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th C ir . 2007). The district court's comments indicate that it considered Jimenez's
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-50514

Document: 00511205582 Page: 2 No. 09-50514

Date Filed: 08/17/2010

a r g u m e n t s but also took into account his history and the need to deter him from c o m m it t in g further crimes against the public in the future. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court was n o t required to engage in "robotic incantations that each statutory factor has b e e n considered." United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006) (in t e r n a l quotation marks and citation omitted). The within-guidelines sentence is presumed to be substantively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F .3 d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). This court has previously affirmed as

s u b s t a n t iv e ly reasonable sentences within the guidelines range in other illegal r e e n tr y cases when defendants raised similar arguments for below-guidelines s e n te n c e s . See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). A F F IR M E D .

2