Romero v. United States Parole Commission ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 7, 2009
    No. 08-60735                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    ROLANDO ROMERO,
    Petitioner
    v.
    UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    United States Parole Commission
    Register No. 69174-079
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Rolando Romero, a United States citizen convicted in a Mexican court of
    transportation of marijuana, was transferred to the United States to serve his
    sentence. He petitions for review of the United States Parole Commission’s
    determination of his release date. Romero argues that the Parole Commission’s
    determination was substantively unreasonable because the release date is longer
    than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) in light of
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    No. 08-60735
    the physical abuse that he suffered while imprisoned in Mexico. We DENY the
    petition for the following reasons:
    1. We review the Parole Commission’s determination as if it had been a
    sentence imposed by the United States District Court. Molano-Garza v.
    U.S. Parole Comm’n, 
    965 F.2d 20
    , 23 (5th Cir. 1992); see also 18 U.S.C.
    § 4106A(b)(2)(B).    The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is
    reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    ,
    597 (2007). That an appellate court “might reasonably have concluded
    that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal
    of the [Parole Commission].” Id.
    2. The Parole Commission’s determination was based on the low end of
    the calculated guidelines range. The hearing examiner considered the
    treatment of Romero in the Mexican prison but concluded that the low end
    of the guideline range was an appropriate sentence because of Romero’s
    criminal history of a prior drug offense and failure to abide by previous
    terms of supervised release. The hearing examiner’s statements and
    recommendation to the Parole Commission show that she exercised
    discretion under advisory guidelines in recommending the release date,
    while considering the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the
    circumstances, including Romero’s abuse in prison, the nature of Romero’s
    offense, his criminal history, and his history of substance abuse and need
    for treatment. We therefore decline to disturb the Parole Commission’s
    determination as unreasonable. See Thorpe v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 902
    F2d 291, 292 (5th Cir. 1990); Calabria v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 227
    F. App’x 336, 338 (5th Cir. 2007).
    PETITION DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-60735

Judges: Reavley, Smith, Dennis

Filed Date: 8/7/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024