USA v. Rodriguez, No. 08-51129 (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. 08-51129 Summary Calendar June 29, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CARLOS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:08-CR-1104-ALL Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos Manuel Rodriguez appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importing a quantity of marijuana greater than 50 kilograms and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana greater than 50 kilograms. On appeal, Rodriguez argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-51129 This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). The district court articulated reasons for imposing a sentence within the applicable guideline range. Statements at Rodriguez s sentencing hearing indicate that the district court considered the history and characteristics of Rodriguez and determined that the 151-month sentence was necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to provide Rodriguez with needed vocational training, to provide Rodriguez with drug abuse treatment, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment and deterrence from further crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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.