USA v. Mary Medina
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10150 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 04/26/2017 for Appellant Mary Ann Medina [16-10150]
Date Filed: 04/05/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
April 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MARY ANN MEDINA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-39-3
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Mary Ann Medina appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following
revocation of her supervised release. For the first time on appeal, she contends
that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because she served her
supervised release term without incident up until her arrest for driving while
intoxicated; the district court’s “rote declaration” at the revocation hearing
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 04/05/2017
failed to justify imposing such a lengthy sentence; and the sentence represents
a clear error in judgment.
Additionally, Medina contends that plain error review should not apply
on appeal. In support of this contention, she observes that there is a circuit
split concerning whether the failure to object to the reasonableness of a
sentence requires plain error review. Medina, however, properly concedes that
this argument is foreclosed in light of United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389,
391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), and she raises it solely to preserve it for further review.
With respect to the substantive reasonableness of Medina’s sentence,
there is no error, plain or otherwise. The 18-month sentence is above the policy
statement range of three to nine months but below the authorized statutory
maximum of two years. We routinely affirm such sentences, and this case does
not warrant a different result. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332
(5th Cir. 2013). Although the district court was provided with information
concerning Medina’s history and circumstances, it explicitly placed more
weight on the need for deterrence and protection of the public. Medina’s
arguments amount to a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of
these sentencing factors and are insufficient to show error. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
To the extent Medina argues that the district court procedurally erred
by failing to give an adequate explanation of its sentencing decision, her
argument is unavailing. The court’s statement that its sentence addressed the
needs of deterrence and protection of the public was sufficient to explain its
deviation from the policy statement range. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580
F.3d 256, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2009).
The judgment of the district court is 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?