USA v. Agustin Hernandez-Venegas, No. 13-50033 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-50032 Document: 00512430629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-50032 Summary Calendar November 5, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ-VENEGAS, also known as Jorge Ignacio Flores Casillas, Defendant-Appellant Cons. w/ No. 13-50033 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ-VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-382-1 USDC No. 1:12-CR-453-1 Case: 13-50032 Document: 00512430629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 No. 13-50032 c/w No. 13-50033 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Agustin Hernandez-Venegas appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The district court ordered the revocation sentence, which was within the guidelines range and below the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the15-month sentence imposed in Hernandez-Venegas s new illegal reentry case. HernandezVenegas argues that his revocation sentence is greater than necessary to further the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors of deterring future criminal conduct and protecting the public. Because Hernandez-Venegas did not object to the reasonableness of his revocation sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Although in imposing a revocation sentence, the district court is directed to consider the relevant factors enumerated in § 3553(a), including the nonbinding policy statements found in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 90-93 (5th Cir. 1994), the district court has substantial latitude in devising revocation sentences for defendants who violate the terms of supervised release. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the imposition of a consecutive revocation sentence is both authorized by statute and preferred under the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s., & comment. (n.4). Hernandez-Venegas s disagreement with the propriety of the consecutively-imposed sentence is insufficient to show that the district court plainly erred in imposing the sentence or to overcome the 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. 2 Case: 13-50032 Document: 00512430629 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2013 No. 13-50032 c/w No. 13-50033 reasonableness afforded to his within-guidelines revocation sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3

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.