USA v. Hilario Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-10295 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/10/2010 [10-10295]

USA v. Hilario Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-10295

Document: 00511269200

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-10295 S u m m a r y Calendar October 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t iff - Appellee v. H I L A R IO GONZALEZ-BALDERAS, SR., also known as Hilario Perez, also k n o w n as Mr. Perez, D e fe n d a n t - Appellant

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 3:90-CR-34-6

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* H ila r io Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr., federal prisoner # 55110-079, appeals the d e n ia l of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. He argues t h e district court failed to express its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa c t o r s , did not articulate reasons for the denial of his motion, the errors are p r o c e d u r a l , and his sentence is unreasonable. Gonzalez-Balderas further

c h a lle n g e s the reasonableness of his sentence based on the court's failure to

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-10295

Document: 00511269200 Page: 2 No. 10-10295

Date Filed: 10/20/2010

r e c a lc u la t e his Sentencing Guidelines range. Gonzalez-Balderas now contends t h a t arguments he raised in previous Section 3582(c)(2) motions and appeals in t h is court are not barred from review under the law of the case doctrine. T h e challenges to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence are w it h o u t merit. The reasonableness standard derived from United States v. B o o k e r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not apply in Section 3582(c)(2) proceedings. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3 4 6 2 (2010). Additionally, the district court is not required to provide reasons fo r its denial of a Section 3582 motion or to explain its consideration of the S e c tio n 3553(a) factors. See id. at 674. Gonzalez-Balderas' arguments challenging the calculation of his sentence r a n g e are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. See United States v. Matthews, 3 1 2 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). His argument that the prior decisions were e r r o n e o u s and work a manifest injustice are conclusory and amount to nothing m o r e than a disagreement with the previous rulings. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2