USA v. Jose Cortinas, No. 15-40401 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40401 Document: 00513578707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40401 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 5, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JOSE URBANO CORTINAS, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1084-2 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jose Urbano Cortinas appeals the 262-month sentence imposed for his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his cooperation with the Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40401 Document: 00513578707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 No. 15-40401 There is no indication that the district court thought it lacked the authority to vary downward to account for Cortinas’s cooperation. See United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599, 601 (5th Cir. 2014). In his written objections to the presentence report, Cortinas advised the district court of its authority to consider cooperation under § 3553(a). Moreover, at the sentencing hearing, the district court listened to Cortinas’s explanations of his cooperation with the Government and explicitly stated that it was considering the evidence, along with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court’s references to a possible reduction of sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for substantial assistance do not establish that it ignored its authority to consider Cortinas’s cooperation under§ 3553(a). 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.