United States v. Alaniz ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50418 Document: 00516655582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50418
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 24, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Sonny Alaniz,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-359-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
James Sonny Alaniz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess 50 grams or more of methamphetamine actual with intent to
distribute. While his advisory guidelines range was 130 to 162 months of
imprisonment, the district court decided to impose an upward departure
_____________________
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-50418 Document: 00516655582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-50418
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) and sentenced Alaniz to 200 months of
imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal,
Alaniz challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
Section 4A1.3 provides for an upward departure if the defendant’s
“criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of
the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will
commit other crimes.” § 4A1.3(a)(1). When a district court determines that
a departure from Category VI is warranted, it should move “incrementally
down the sentencing table to the next higher offense level in Criminal History
Category VI” to reach an appropriate guidelines range. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B). In
this case, although the district court did not expressly state that it considered
each step or provide reasons for rejecting each step in departing upward, it
was not required to do so, and its reasoning implicitly established the
rationale for rejecting the intervening levels. See United States v. Zuniga-
Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 348 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, Alaniz has not
demonstrated an error, plain or otherwise, as to the procedural soundness of
his sentence. See id. at 347; see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009); United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2009).
As to substantive reasonableness, the district court properly
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the facts of the case in
determining that an upward departure was warranted. See Zuniga-Peralta,
442 F.3d at 347. The district court’s reasons addressed Alaniz’s history and
characteristics and the need to deter Alaniz from future criminal conduct.
See § 3553(a)(1)-(2); Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d at 347. Alaniz contends that
the district court failed to consider his serious medical conditions and the
unlikelihood of his recidivism, but nothing suggests that the district court
failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave
significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in
2
Case: 22-50418 Document: 00516655582 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-50418
balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213,
221 (5th Cir. 2014). We therefore defer to the district court’s determination
that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, warrant the departure and justify the
extent of the upward departure imposed. See id.
Given the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3