USA v. Eddie Martinez, No. 09-50481 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-50481 Document: 00511102549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50481 Summary Calendar May 6, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDDIE MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2699-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eddie Martinez challenges the sentence the district court imposed after revoking a previously imposed term of supervised release. Martinez argues that the 24-month sentence is plainly unreasonable because the sentence was supposed to be a penalty for his breach of trust in violating the conditions of his supervision, a breach which he asserts was relatively minor. He contends that a sentence between four and ten months of imprisonment, the Sentencing * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-50481 Document: 00511102549 Page: 2 No. 09-50481 Date Filed: 05/06/2010 Guidelines range, would have been sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Martinez did not object to the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 792 (5th Cir. 2007). While the 24-month sentence exceeded the advisory guidelines range as properly calculated by the district court, the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Given the district court s expressed concerns regarding Martinez s history and characteristics, and its implicit consideration of other § 3553(a) factors as well, Martinez has not shown that the sentence constituted plain error. See Jones, 484 F.3d at 792-93; United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). 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.
