USA v. Guajardo, No. 08-51016 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-51016 Summary Calendar June 22, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. FREDERICK GUAJARDO Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-397-1 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Frederick Guajardo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Guajardo argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the guidelines sentence range was greater than necessary to meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Guajardo acknowledges that a discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-51016 reasonableness, citing Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574-75 (2007), however, he contends that his within-guidelines sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the drug offense guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, is not supported by empirical research and may result in sentences greater than necessary in normal cases. Guajardo s reliance on Kimbrough is misplaced. While the Supreme Court did note that the drug trafficking guideline was based upon drug quantity and not empirical research, the Court held only that a district court may sentence a defendant outside of the guidelines range on the basis that it had determined that the guidelines range was flawed, not that the permissible appellate court presumption is inapplicable in drug trafficking cases. See Kimbrough, 128 S. Ct. at 564, 567, 571-76. In other words, Kimbrough did not tie the presumption of reasonableness to whether the guideline was supported by empirical research. See id. Guajardo also argues that his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the goals of Section 3553(a). For the reasons noted above, Guajardo s withinguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Guajardo has presented nothing on appeal that was not specifically considered by the district court in choosing a sentence within the guidelines range that met the requirements of Section 3553(a). The district court s judgment 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.
