USA v. Antonio Molina-Gonzalez, No. 11-50875 (5th Cir. 2012)
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. 11-50796 Summary Calendar June 14, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTONIO MOLINA-GONZALEZ, also known as Antonio Molina, Defendant-Appellant ___________________________________________________ Cons. w/No. 11-50875 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTONIO MOLINA-GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-522-1 USDC No. 3:08-CR-3327-1 No. 11-50796 c/w No. 11-50875 Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antonio Molina-Gonzalez (Molina) pleaded guilty to entering the United States illegally following deportation and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to a 21-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. Molina was also found to have been in violation of the conditions of his supervised release related to a prior illegal-reentry conviction. For that, he was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to a consecutive nine-month term of imprisonment. In imposing the consecutive sentence, the district court considered Molina s prior assaultive conduct and the need to deter him from returning to the United States. In these consolidated appeals, Molina contends that the district court imposed an unreasonably harsh sentence by ordering that his two sentences be served consecutively. He asserts that the nine-month consecutive sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the statutory goals of sentencing because it failed to reflect his personal circumstances. We have reviewed these contentions for plain error. See United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010). Because the sentences for the new offense and the revocation sentence were within the advisory guidelines ranges, they are presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Molina has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See id. AFFIRMED. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 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.
