USA v. Roylan Romero-Coronado

Filing 920101230


Download PDF
Case: 10-10320 Document: 00511336223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED N o . 10-10320 S u m m a r y Calendar December 30, 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. R O Y L A N ROMERO-CORONADO, 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. 3:09-CR-313-1 B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o y la n Romero-Coronado (Romero) appeals the 72-month sentence im p o s e d in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the U n ite d States following his prior deportation. R o m e r o 's sole argument on appeal is that in imposing his sentence (an u p w a r d variance from the guidelines range), the district court procedurally erred b y failing to acknowledge or explain its disagreement with the United States S e n te n c in g Commission's policy decision that the severity of a reentry offense 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 10-10320 Document: 00511336223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2010 No. 10-10320 s h o u ld be measured by the defendant's most serious pre-deportation conviction, n o t by the defendant's number of deportations. In support, Romero relies in la r g e part on United States v. Simmons, 568 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2009), wherein w e stated that when a district court disagrees with the Guidelines' policy c o n s id e r a t io n s , "what is necessary is that a court explain its reasons for d is a g r e e in g with [same]." Id. at 570. Romero's claim of procedural error is p r e m is e d on his assertion that the Sentencing Commission has made the policy d e c is io n that courts should not consider an illegal reentry defendant's prior d e p o r t a t io n s in assessing the severity of the defendant's offense conduct. Romero, however, points to no provision, policy statement, or commentary within t h e Guidelines that supports his assertion. Accordingly, Simmons is not a p p lic a b le to the instant case, and Romero has not shown that the district court c o m m it t e d any procedural error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2 0 0 7 ). T h e district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?