USA v. Gilberto Espinoza-Moran, No. 09-50897 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-50897 Document: 00511187221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50897 Summary Calendar July 28, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GILBERTO ESPINOZA-MORAN, also known as Gilberto Espinoza Moran, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-65-1 Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gilberto Espinoza-Moran pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement to being unlawfully present in the United States following removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Although the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines range was 37 to 46 months of imprisonment, the district court determined that a non-guidelines sentence was appropriate and sentenced Espinoza-Moran to 60 months of imprisonment. Espinoza-Moran argues on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-50897 Document: 00511187221 Page: 2 No. 09-50897 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), our review of sentences is for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir. 2005). We first determine whether the district court committed procedural error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there is no procedural error, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. As Espinoza-Moran does not suggest that the sentencing court committed any procedural errors in calculating or explaining the reasons for his sentence, our review is confined to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We find no merit in Espinoza-Moran s argument that the district court erred in finding that the guidelines range did not adequately account for his criminal history. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 350. In light of the substantial criminal conduct not counted under the Sentencing Guidelines, Espinoza s 60-month sentence was within the discretion of the district court and was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 348-50; United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433-34, 440-41 (5th Cir. 2006). 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.
