USA v. Alex Interiano-Zavala, No. 13-50898 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-50898 Document: 00512670304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-50898 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 19, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, versus ALEX JEOVANY INTERIANO-ZAVALA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 2:13-CR-166 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alex Interiano-Zavala appeals the 30-month, above-range sentence 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50898 Document: 00512670304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 No. 13-50898 imposed for reentering the United States illegally after removal, claiming that it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is therefore substantively unreasonable. This is a variance sentence because it falls outside the calculated guideline range but is not specifically authorized by any guideline. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, it will be upheld if it is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the factors in § 3553(a). Id. The district court considered the guidelines and the factors in § 3553(a). The record . . . demonstrates the reasonableness of the sentence. Brantley, 537 F.3d at 350. The offense of conviction was the type that Interiano-Zavala had committed before and for which he had been punished briefly without apparent deterrent effect, and his history of other crimes did not suggest that he was averse to additional criminal activity. His personal characteristics thus indicated that a long incarceration period was required to provide just punishment, to ensure adequate deterrence, and to protect the public. Id. Consequently, there is no basis for disturbing the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349 50. 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.