USA v. Alejandro Munoz

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50650 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 06/19/2014 for Appellant Alejandro Munoz [13-50650]

Case: 13-50650

Document: 00512646039

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/29/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50650
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 29, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
ALEJANDRO MUNOZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CR-442-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Alejandro Munoz was convicted of possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 74 months of imprisonment, to be
followed by five years of supervised release. The district court revoked his
supervised release and sentenced Munoz to 24 months of imprisonment.
Munoz now challenges the substantive reasonableness of his revocation
sentence, which was within the advisory range, arguing that it is greater than

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50650

Document: 00512646039

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/29/2014

No. 13-50650
necessary to achieve the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts
that the district court did not consider the fact of his self-surrender and that
the sentence should not have been imposed consecutively to a state court
sentence.
This

court

reviews

revocation

sentences

under

the

“plainly

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.
2011). Munoz argues that revocation sentences should be reviewed under the
reasonableness standard as set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). He acknowledges that this issue is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve
the issue for further possible review.
The revocation sentence imposed in the instant case fell within the
advisory range, and is, therefore, entitled to an appellate presumption of
reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th
Cir. 2008). Munoz’s arguments amount to nothing more than a disagreement
with the sentence imposed, and he fails to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness attached to his sentence. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2