USA v. Raul Garcia-Nevarez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50712 Affirmed ] Judge: WG , Judge: WED , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 05/09/2011 for Appellant Raul Garcia-Nevarez [10-50712]
Case: 10-50712 Document: 00511449397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
April 18, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-3418-2
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Raul Garcia-Nevarez (Garcia) appeals from his four concurrent 24-month
sentences imposed following his convictions for two counts of conspiring to
illegally export defense articles and two counts of aiding and abetting the illegal
export of defense articles; his sentences each fall well below the applicable
Garcia asserts no procedural error. He claims only that the sentence is
substantively unreasonably long in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and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: 10-50712 Document: 00511449397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2011
ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Alonzo,
435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). However, because Garcia did not object to the
unreasonableness of his sentence in the district court, our review is for plain
error only. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). We
decline his invitation to engage in impermissible “substantive second-guessing
of the sentencing court.” United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 767
(5th Cir. 2008).
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?