USA v. Marco Quiroz-Garcia
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30560 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 03/16/2012 for Appellant Marco Antonio Quiroz-Garcia [11-30560]
Date Filed: 02/24/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
February 24, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MARCO ANTONIO QUIROZ-GARCIA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Marco Quiroz-Garcia appeals the 96-month sentence following his guiltyplea conviction of illegally reentering the United States after removal. See
8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence, which the district court charac*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 02/24/2012
terized as both an upward departure and a variance from his advisory sentencing guideline range of 57-71 months, is substantively unreasonable.
Where, as here, an appellant has preserved error, we review sentences,
including those based on variances or departures, for reasonableness. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review the substantive reasonableness
of a sentence “under an abuse-of-discretion standard . . . tak[ing] into account
the totality of the circumstances.” Id.
The district court found that an above-guideline sentence was warranted
because Quiroz-Garcia abused alcohol, had a propensity for violence, had repeatedly entered the United States without permission, and had been convicted of
twelve criminal offenses, eight of which were too old to be reflected in his criminal history score. Quiroz-Garcia’s criminal history, including uncounted convictions, provided a proper basis for an upward departure or variance. See U.S.S.G
§ 4A1.3(a), p.s.; United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008). The
sentence is justified by the facts, and it advances the objectives of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2), such as protecting the public from further crimes. It is well within
the range of variances and departures this court has upheld. See e.g. Brantley,
537 F.3d at 349-50 (upholding a 180-month sentence imposed as an upward
departure and variance where the maximum guideline sentence was 51 months);
United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2006) (upholding
a 60-month sentence imposed as an upward departure where the maximum
guideline sentence was 33 months).
Quiroz-Garcia maintains that his prior convictions had little probative
value regarding his potential for recidivism, and he complains that the district
court failed adequately to consider his relatively crime-free recent past. That
argument, however, is essentially a request that we reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we will not do. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Quiroz-Garcia has not shown that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. AFFIRMED.
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?