USA v. Ismael Garza

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40247 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JES , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 11/22/2010 for Appellant Ismael R. Garza; denying motion to expedite appeal filed by Appellant Mr. Ismael R. Garza [6623780-2] [10-40247]

USA v. Ismael Garza ase: 10-40247 C

Document: 00511280322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-40247 S u m m a r y Calendar November 1, 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. I S M A E L R. GARZA, 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. 2:10-CR-120-1

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* I s m a e l R. Garza appeals from the district court's imposition of two c o n s e c u t iv e terms of imprisonment following the revocation of his terms of s u p e r v is e d release. The district court imposed eight-month terms of

im p rison m e n t on each revoked count, to be served consecutively, followed by four m o n th s of supervised release. The eight-month sentences were within the eightt o fourteen-month guidelines range and were below the twelve-month statutory m a x im u m .
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-40247 Document: 00511280322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2010 No. 10-40247 G a r z a argues that the district court reversibly erred by interpreting the G u id e lin e s policy statements as recommending that the guidelines range be a p p lie d cumulatively to each term of supervised release revoked. Relying largely o n U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2, he argues that, like the Guidelines applicable at initial s e n te n c in g , the revocation policy statements should be interpreted as requiring o n e guidelines range applicable globally to all revoked terms of supervised r e le a s e and as allowing consecutive sentences only as necessary to achieve the t o t a l punishment recommended by the guidelines range. T h e record does not support Garza's underlying premise, that the district cou rt believed that the policy statements recommended that the guidelines range b e applied cumulatively to each term of supervised release revoked. The district c o u r t had authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) to impose consecutive sentences o f imprisonment in its revocation of Garza's concurrent terms of supervised re lease. United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir. 2001).

Additionally, we have rejected the argument that the policy statements in C h a p t e r 7 of the Guidelines should be read to preclude the imposition of c o n s e c u t iv e sentences. Id. at 929 n.8. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and Garza's motion to e x p e d it e the appeal is DENIED.

2