USA v. Edgar Hermosillo-Minor
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-51234 Affirmed] Judge: CDK , Judge: EGJ , Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 09/01/2011 for Appellant Edgar Hermosillo-Minor [10-51234]
Date Filed: 08/11/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
August 11, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
EDGAR HERMOSILLO-MINOR, also known as Edgar Hermosillo,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-1986-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Hermosillo-Minor appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following
his guilty plea conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with
intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater than
necessary to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hermosillo-Minor
asserts that application of the career offender enhancement yielded an advisory
guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of his offense and did not
properly account for the § 3553(a) factors. He also argues that the sentence fails
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 08/11/2011
to account for mitigating factors in his personal history and characteristics,
particularly his problems with substance abuse.
Hermosillo-Minor does not dispute the calculation of the guidelines range.
Rather, he challenges the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Where the
district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range,
it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531
F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court considered HermosilloMinor’s arguments for a lower sentence and made an individualized sentencing
decision based on the facts of the case and in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Hermosillo-Minor’s sentence is
presumed to be reasonable because it was within his guidelines range, and he
has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See
Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Thus, he has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with
respect to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564
F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009).
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?