USA v. James Cuneo, No. 17-60501 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60501 Document: 00514395360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60501 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES TRACY CUNEO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:11-CR-168-1 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Tracy Cuneo appeals the revocation of his supervised release following his sentence for failure to register as a sex offender. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 14-month term of imprisonment, which fell within the range of the guidelines policy statement. Sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are reviewed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4)’s “plainly unreasonable” standard, which is more deferential than 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60501 Document: 00514395360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018 No. 17-60501 the reasonableness standard applicable to sentences imposed upon conviction. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court heard Cuneo’s mitigating arguments and concluded that a withinguidelines sentence of 14 months was appropriate. Cuneo’s argument that he should have received a lower sentence in light of the circumstances surrounding the violations amounts to a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and this court will not reweigh those factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Cuneo has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that applies. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s judgment is affirmed. Cuneo’s motion for appointment of new counsel is denied. See Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5(B); United States v. Breeland, 53 F.3d 100, 106 n.11 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED; MOTION TO APPOINT NEW COUNSEL DENIED. 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.
