USA v. Enrique Moreno-Cruz, No. 10-50204 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 10-50204 Document: 00511316179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50204 Summary Calendar December 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ENRIQUE MORENO-CRUZ, also known as Enrique Castillo-Moreno, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-239-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Enrique Moreno-Cruz (Moreno) appeals the 46-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. He asserts that his sentence, despite being within the applicable guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly based the sentence on Moreno s personal factors rather than on the severity of the offense. Additionally, Moreno hypothesizes that such a lengthy sentence could give rise to a due process violation. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50204 Document: 00511316179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2010 No. 10-50204 Because Moreno did not object to the imposed sentence as unreasonable, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 39192 (5th Cir. 2007). Moreno s disagreement with the within-guidelines sentence imposed does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court is required to consider the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the history and characteristics of the defendant. § 3553(a)(1). Consequently, 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.