United States v. Taylor Mendez ( 2014 )

Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-10483 FILED
Summary Calendar February 20, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
TAYLOR MICHAEL MENDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-226-1
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Taylor Michael Mendez challenges his within-Guidelines sentence,
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction on one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Mendez was
sentenced, inter alia, to 180-months’ imprisonment. The district court rejected
Mendez’ request for his sentence to be concurrent with two state convictions
that were included as relevant conduct in the instant offense.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2014
No. 13-10483
Mendez contends: his sentence is substantively unreasonable, including,
because of the court’s failing to provide sufficient reasons for its length and its
being consecutive to the state convictions. Although post-Booker, the
Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-
discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the
Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved
in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its
factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,
517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359
(5th Cir. 2005). Mendez expressly does not claim procedural error. Again, he
maintains only that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The sentence, including its being consecutive, is in accord with proper
rules and Guidelines calculations; therefore, it is presumed reasonable. See
United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2006). To rebut this
presumption, Mendez must show “the sentence does not account for a factor
that should [have] receive[d] significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to
an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing sentencing factors”. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009).
The district court gave sufficient explanation for the sentence. See
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362 (5th Cir. 2009)
(noting within-Guidelines sentences require little explanation). Mendez
essentially asks this court to substitute his assessment of the sentencing
2
Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2014
No. 13-10483
factors for the district court’s well-reasoned assessment; this would be directly
contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall. See 552 U.S. at 46.
AFFIRMED.
3