USA v. Alejandro Munoz, No. 13-50650 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-50650 Document: 00512646039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-50650 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ALEJANDRO MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-442-1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Munoz was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 74 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced Munoz to 24 months of imprisonment. Munoz now challenges the substantive reasonableness of his revocation sentence, which was within the advisory range, arguing that it is greater than 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50650 Document: 00512646039 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2014 No. 13-50650 necessary to achieve the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserts that the district court did not consider the fact of his self-surrender and that the sentence should not have been imposed consecutively to a state court sentence. This court reviews revocation sentences under the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Munoz argues that revocation sentences should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard as set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He acknowledges that this issue is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for further possible review. The revocation sentence imposed in the instant case fell within the advisory range, and is, therefore, entitled to an appellate presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Munoz s arguments amount to nothing more than a disagreement with the sentence imposed, and he fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his sentence. See id. 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.