United States v. Robles ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50666 Document: 00516354181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 13, 2022
No. 21-50666
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lori Ann Robles,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 6:20-CR-67-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Lori Robles pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to dis-
tribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and appeals
the 360-month sentence. She maintains that the sentence is unreasonable
because the district court failed expressly to consider the sentencing factors
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50666 Document: 00516354181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 21-50666
of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). She also urges that the court should have given more
consideration to her personal history of sexual and substance abuse.
We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Furthermore, we presume that a within-guidelines sentence is reasonable.
United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013).
The district court implicitly and explicitly considered the record, the
§ 3553(a) factors, and Robles’s mitigation arguments before determining that
a sentence within the guideline range was appropriate. The explanation of
the sentence was sufficient under the circumstances. See United States v.
Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). Robles fails to rebut the pre-
sumption of reasonableness by showing that the district court failed to con-
sider a pertinent factor, considered an irrelevant or improper factor, or erred
in balancing the sentencing factors. See Jenkins, 712 F.3d at 214.
AFFIRMED.
2