USA v. Claudia Montoya-Derios, No. 16-50739 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-50723 Document: 00513898577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-50723 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CLAUDIA ELENA MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant Consolidated with 16-50739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CLAUDIA MONTOYA-DERIOS, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-1192-1 USDC No. 2:16-CR-37-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 16-50723 Document: 00513898577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2017 No. 16-50723 Cons w/ No. 16-50739 PER CURIAM: * Claudia Elena Montoya was convicted of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In a separate proceeding, her supervised release was revoked, and she was sentenced to four months of imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence for the illegal reentry conviction. Her appeals from these judgments have been consolidated for our review. Montoya contends that her 57-month sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Her arguments pertain to the 57-month sentence imposed for her illegal reentry conviction; she does not make any specific argument regarding her revocation sentence. Accordingly, she has abandoned her appeal of her revocation judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). She fails to demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the substantive reasonableness of her sentence for her illegal reentry conviction. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * 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.