USA v. Michael Gomez, No. 18-10686 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-10686 Document: 00514886207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-10686 Summary Calendar FILED March 25, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL ZACHARIAH GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-206-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Zachariah Gomez appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release term on substantive unreasonableness grounds. He contends that the district court gave no weight to the policy statement range of 4 to 10 months or to most of the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while giving too much weight to a single § 3553(a) factor, deterrence. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-10686 Document: 00514886207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2019 No. 18-10686 We review Gomez’s sentence under the “plainly unreasonable standard,” which is highly deferential. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We recognize that Gomez’s sentence was well above the policy-statement range, but “[w]e have routinely affirmed revocation sentences exceeding the advisory range, even where the sentence equals the statutory maximum.” Id. at 332 (collecting cases). Moreover, Gomez has not established that the sentencing judge considered only deterrence while ignoring other factors. The judge’s statements about Gomez’s crimes while on parole speak to Gomez’s “history and characteristics,” as well as the need to “protect the public from further crimes.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (listing sentencing factors). Given the deference owed to the district court’s sentencing decision, Gomez has not established that his 36-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. See Warren, 720 F.3d at 326. 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.