USA v. Lugo-Quinones, No. 07-51210 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-51210 Summary Calendar June 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE LUIS LUGO-QUINONES Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-152-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Luis Lugo-Quinones (Lugo) appeals the 33-month sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute. Lugo contends that the sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider that he committed the offense in order to pay for his 15-year old daughter s birthday party or that he has not been convicted of a crime since 1997. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 07-51210 Lugo did not argue in the district court that his sentence was unreasonable. Nor did he argue that the motive for his offense should affect the sentence he received. Therefore, his sentence is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-93 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 22, 2008) (No. 07-8978). The district court committed no procedural error at sentencing. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Moreover, the district court addressed the nature and circumstances of Lugo s offense, the seriousness of his offense, and the need to deter him from additional crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (2). The district court also considered the guideline range and any policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. See § 3553(a)(4) & (5). Thus, Lugo has not shown that the sentence imposed by the district court was an abuse of discretion that constituted error, plain or otherwise. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.
