USA v. Edgar Cruz


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50948 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 08/01/2011 for Appellant Edgar Cruz [10-50948]

Download PDF
Case: 10-50948 Document: 00511536231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50948 Summary Calendar July 11, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDGAR CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-1035-1 Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edgar Cruz pleaded guilty to importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and he was sentenced within the guidelines range to 77 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently. Cruz argues on appeal that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence when it sentenced him at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range to 77 months of imprisonment. * He contends that the career offender 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50948 Document: 00511536231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2011 No. 10-50948 enhancement overstated the seriousness of his offense and did not take into consideration any of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He also contends that his sentence was greater than necessary because of mitigating factors in his personal history and characteristics and his family responsibilities. Because Cruz did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the district court, the issue should be reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). The record demonstrates that the district court considered Cruz’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors in imposing his within-Guidelines sentence, and thus Cruz has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As a result, Cruz has not shown that the district court committed plain error by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92. 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?