USA v. Israel Andrade-Favela

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10880 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: PRO, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 06/20/2017 for Appellant Israel Andrade-Favela [16-10880]

Case: 16-10880

Document: 00514011798

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10880
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 30, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ISRAEL ANDRADE-FAVELA,

Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CR-46-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Israel Andrade-Favela pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The district
court departed above the guidelines range of 21 to 27 months and sentenced
him to 72 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to a 45-year state
sentence and a 24-month revocation sentence. He challenges the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10880

Document: 00514011798

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

No. 16-10880
We assume that Andrade-Favela preserved his challenge to the
reasonableness of the upward departure. The district court’s decision to depart
on the basis of Andrade-Favela’s history of repeated illegal entries and the
serious nature of his state conviction advances the objectives of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2) and is justified by the facts of the case. The extent of the departure
is further justified by Andrade-Favela’s state conviction and the deference
owed to the district court. Thus, Andrade-Favela fails to show that the district
court abused its discretion in departing. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,
442 F.3d 345, 346-48 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298,
309-16 (5th Cir. 2005).
Andrade-Favela did not preserve his challenge to the reasonableness of
the consecutive sentence.

The consecutive nature of the sentence was

authorized by statute and the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a);
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) & comment. (n.4(A), (C)). He fails to show that the district
court erred, much less plainly erred, in imposing a consecutive sentence,
particularly in light of the deference owed to the district court. See Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
736 (1993); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.
2008); United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2