USA v. Habib-Rodriguez, No. 06-41600 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 06-41600 Summary Calendar January 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORGE A. HABIB-RODRIGUEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-576-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jorge A. Habib-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Habib challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, particularly the district court s failure to impose a sentence below the calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, based on the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For sentencing, Habib neither contested the calculation of that * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 06-41600 range nor objected to a sentence being imposed within it. Therefore, review is only for plain error. The district court gave sufficient reasons for sentencing Habib within that sentencing range. Furthermore, Habib s sentence within that advisory range was presumptively reasonable, and Habib has not shown that the sentence ... constitute[s] a clear error in the court s exercise of its broad sentencing discretion as to whether the sentence (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors . United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007). 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.