USA v. Espinoza-Martinez, No. 07-50520 (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. 07-50520 Summary Calendar January 25, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAMON GERARDO ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-2630 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ramon Gerardo Espinoza-Martinez pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Espinoza-Martinez at the low end of the properly calculated guidelines range to 70 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Espinoza-Martinez now appeals his sentence. Espinoza-Martinez argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-50520 argues that sentence is not necessary to protect the public or to prevent him from committing future crimes because this was his first offense and he is genuinely repentant. The district court committed no significant procedural error as it properly calculated the applicable guidelines range, allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, and considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. Where, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). Espinoza-Martinez has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Accordingly, 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.
