USA v. Eduardo Zamarripa, No. 18-11435 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11435 Document: 00515384939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-11435 Summary Calendar FILED April 16, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDUARDO ZAMARRIPA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-172-1 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In 2016, Eduardo Zamarripa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. His supervised release began in January 2017, and he was subsequently deported to Mexico. The district court revoked Zamarripa’s term of supervised release and sentenced him at the high end of the policy statement range to 24 months of imprisonment and to one year of supervised release. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-11435 Document: 00515384939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 No. 18-11435 Zamarripa argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its sentence adequately, in light of his nonfrivolous argument for a lesser sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Zamarripa fails to establish reversible plain error, as the district court’s comments at sentencing reflect that it weighed Zamarripa’s arguments for a lesser sentence but concluded that a high-end sentence was warranted, enabling this court to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 294-95 (5th Cir. 2013); Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264. 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.