USA v. Angela Cuellar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50816 Affirmed ] Judge: FPB , Judge: CH , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 05/15/2013 for Appellant Angela Marie Cuellar [11-50816]

Download PDF
Case: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-50816 Summary Calendar April 24, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANGELA MARIE CUELLAR, also known as Angela Cuellar, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-288-1 Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Angela Marie Cuellar was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f), and four counts of aggravated identity theft, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The district court imposed a 24-month imprisonment term for her conspiracy conviction and consecutive 24-month imprisonment terms for each of her convictions for aggravated identity theft, resulting in a total of 10 years of imprisonment. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50816 Document: 00512218656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2013 No. 11-50816 Cuellar argues that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the imprisonment terms for her aggravated identity theft convictions to run consecutively to each other. The district court had the discretion to determine whether those imprisonment terms would be served concurrently or consecutively. See § 1028A(b)(4). In light of the evidence regarding the extensiveness of Cuellar’s criminal conduct, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See § 1028A(b)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2, comment. (n.2(B)). According to Cuellar, the district court also failed to adequately provide reasons for its decision to impose the consecutive sentences. Because she did not object on this ground in the district court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Cuellar has not shown any clear or obvious error regarding the adequacy of the district court’s reasons. The judgment of the district court is 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?