United States v. Sanchez, No. 12-2038 (10th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 11, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 12-2038 (D. New Mexico) ROBERT SANCHEZ, (D.C. No. 1:10-CR-03449-JB-1) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant Robert Sanchez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The minimum sentence for the felon-in-possession count was 180 months imprisonment, and the mandatory sentence for the other firearm count was 60 months, to run consecutively to the sentences on the other counts. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. The undisputed sentencing guideline range was 322 to 387 months imprisonment. The district court varied downward to impose a sentence of 292 months. The only challenge on appeal is that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Because the sentence was below the guidelines range, we presume that the sentence was not unreasonably long. See United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011). Defendant has not persuaded us that the presumption has been overcome. Therefore, we AFFIRM the sentence. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.