USA v. David Sanchez, No. 13-51031 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-51031 Document: 00512685203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-51031 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 2, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAVID GUILLERMO SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-1360 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * David Guillermo Sanchez argues that the imposition upon the revocation of his supervised release of a 24-month prison sentence, which is above the guidelines policy range but at the statutory maximum, is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, he argues that the sentence imposed overstates his breach of trust and does not address his drug addiction. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-51031 Document: 00512685203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 No. 13-51031 To preserve the issue for further review, Sanchez, relying upon United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), argues that revocation sentences should be reviewed for reasonableness. However this court reviews such sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) s plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). Revocation sentences exceeding the policy statements range but not exceeding the statutory maximum have been upheld as a matter of routine and are not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2013). In this case, the sentencing court listened to Sanchez s arguments concerning his drug addiction but considered his criminal history, the fact that he received a belowguidelines sentence for his drug conviction, and the fact that he nevertheless, upon his release from prison, quickly violated the terms of his supervised release. A defendant s history and characteristics are proper factors for a court s consideration in imposing a revocation sentence. § 3583(e). See § 3553(a)(1); Accordingly, Sanchez s revocation sentence was not plainly unreasonable. See Miller, 634 F.3d at 843. 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.
