USA v. Mark Alexander, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50945 Affirmed ] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 09/08/2011 for Appellant Mark Carey Alexander Jr. [10-50945]

Download PDF
Case: 10-50945 Document: 00511576077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50945 Summary Calendar August 18, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee v. MARK CAREY ALEXANDER, JR., Defendant–Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-5-1 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mark Carey Alexander, Jr. appeals his 97-month sentence for simple bank robbery. Alexander contends that his within-Guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it overstates the seriousness of his offense. Specifically, Alexander argues that the district court should not have considered the firearm-related conduct of which he was acquitted by a jury in sentencing him at the top of the Guidelines range. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50945 Document: 00511576077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2011 No. 10-50945 In addition, Alexander contends that his sentence is too harsh because he must first serve a 20-year Texas sentence before his federal sentence begins. A sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines sentencing range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1930 (2010). Here, Alexander concedes that his sentence is reviewed for plain error because he did not object to the sentence imposed in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259–60 (5th Cir. 2009). Alexander’s arguments are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, even under the ordinary standard of review. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. It follows that he has failed to demonstrate plain error. 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?