USA v. Manuel Gama-Peralta, No. 18-30851 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-30851 Document: 00515123439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-30851 Summary Calendar FILED September 18, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL GAMA-PERALTA, also known as Roberto Mendoza-Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:17-CR-120-2 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Gama-Peralta pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of cocaine hydrochloride. He received an above-guidelines sentence of 120 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. On appeal, Gama-Peralta challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. He argues that (1) the reasons given by the district court at sentencing for his 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-30851 Document: 00515123439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 No. 18-30851 upward variance were inadequate because they relied on factors that were either already taken into account by the Sentencing Guidelines or were too general and (2) the district court’s written statement of reasons did not include an explanation for the upward variance. This argument challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence based on the district court’s alleged failure to adequately explain the upward variance from the guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court provided thorough, fact-specific reasons for GamaPeralta’s above-guidelines sentence that were consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (B), (C). Although Gama-Peralta contends that the district court’s upward variance should not have relied on factors that were already taken into account in determining his guidelines range, the district court was entitled to rely on factors encompassed in the Guidelines in imposing a nonguidelines sentence. See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). In light of the foregoing, Gama-Peralta has not demonstrated that the district court committed any error, plain or otherwise, by failing to adequately explain his sentence. Gama-Peralta also argues that his above-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable because the extent of the variance was greater than necessary in light of the district court’s reliance on factors that were already taken into account in the guidelines range. He contends that nothing distinctive about his background or the crime warranted an upward variance and that there was an unwarranted disparity between him and his codefendants. As explained above, the issue of whether a district court may consider factors that were already taken into account in calculating his guidelines range 2 Case: 18-30851 Document: 00515123439 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 No. 18-30851 is foreclosed. See Key, 599 F.3d at 475. Moreover, the record establishes that the district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors at sentencing. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (B), (C). Gama-Peralta has not provided any facts demonstrating that he and his co-defendants were similarly situated or that there were any unwarranted sentencing disparities. See United States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010). His arguments constitute a mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). In light of the foregoing, given the deference that is due to the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors justified an upward variance, Gama-Peralta has not demonstrated that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, by imposing a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 3
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.
