USA v. Jesus Gonzalez, No. 15-51092 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-51092 Document: 00513822307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-51092 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED January 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS GUADALUPE GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-183-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: * Jesus Guadalupe Gonzalez appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of a prior term of supervised release. The sentence was imposed to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment for his 2014 illegal reentry conviction. Gonzalez argues that his 12-month revocation sentence is procedurally unreasonable because of the manner in which the district court 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-51092 Document: 00513822307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2017 No. 15-51092 considered and weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals. By failing to provide relevant record cites or an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors as applied to him, he has effectively waived appellate review of his argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365, 371 (5th Cir. 1992); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). In any event, because Gonzalez did not object to the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2009). Gonzalez fails to show plain error. The district court considered the guidelines policy statement and explained the reasons for the sentence imposed; sentenced him below the statutory maximum sentence and below the guidelines policy statement range of imprisonment; and, in so doing, imposed a presumptively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008); U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.3(f) & cmt. n.4; 7B1.4(a). Gonzalez has failed to rebut that presumption. 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.
