USA v. Adan Hernandez-Nunez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-40118 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES Mandate issue date is 12/27/2017 for Appellant Adan Hernandez-Nunez [17-40118]

Case: 17-40118

Document: 00514260999

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/05/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-40118
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
December 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
ADAN HERNANDEZ-NUNEZ,
Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 7:16-CR-1194-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Adan Hernandez-Nunez pleaded guilty of harboring an alien for

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40118

Document: 00514260999

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/05/2017

No. 17-40118
financial gain, and he received an above-guidelines sentence of fifty months in
prison and three years’ supervised release. He contends that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court’s decision that an aboveguidelines sentence was warranted was grounded in conduct that was already
factored into the guidelines calculations.
If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the guidelines range, this court evaluates whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to
reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United
States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence
unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does
not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id.
The district court gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and
committed no error when balancing them. See id. Hernandez-Nunez’s theory
that the court should have balanced the § 3553(a) factors differently “is not a
sufficient ground for reversal.” See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 526 (2016).
AFFIRMED.

2