United States v. Eric Hernandez-Puentes

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion

Case: 09-11204 Document: 00511216251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2010

No. 09-11204

Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIC HERNANDEZ-PUENTES, also known as Eddy Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-49-1

Before KING, D

MOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

E

*

PER CURIAM:

Eric Hernandez-Puentes (Hernandez) appeals his sentence of 30 months

of imprisonment, following his guilty plea conviction to illegal reentry into the

United States. He argues, as he did in the district court, that the sentence,

which exceeded the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable.

Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness by engaging in a bifurcated

review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Hernandez does not argue

*

Pursuant to 5

C

.

R.

47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

TH

IR

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

C

.

TH

IR

R.

47.5.4.

Case: 09-11204 Document: 00511216251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2010

No. 09-11204

that the district court committed any procedural error; thus, we need only review

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Hernandez argues that his above-guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable because the advisory guidelines range adequately accounted for

his prior criminal history, including the nature and recency of his past crimes.

The Supreme Court, however, has “implicitly rejected the position that no

additional weight could be given to factors included in calculating the applicable

advisory Guidelines range, since to do otherwise would essentially render the

Guidelines mandatory.” United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir.

2008). Moreover, the district court’s oral and written reasons reflect that the

court considered the guidelines; the policy statements; and the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense of

conviction, Hernandez’s history and characteristics, and the need for the

sentence to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public from further

criminal conduct by Hernandez. The district court noted that Hernandez’s

criminal history reflected several crimes which were not included in the

guidelines calculations and which, as a whole, reflected that Hernandez had a

lack of respect for the law.

In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence

imposed “was reasonable under the totality of the relevant statutory factors”.

United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation

omitted); see also United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.

2008) (upholding an upward variance based on the nature and characteristics

of the defendant and his criminal history).

AFFIRMED.

2