United States v. Christian Flores , 452 F. App'x 484 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-20055     Document: 00511672005         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/21/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    November 21, 2011
    No. 11-20055
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    CHRISTIAN JAVIER GUZMAN FLORES,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:09-CR-579-4
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Christian Javier Guzman Flores pleaded guilty without the benefit of a
    plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
    cocaine. He appeals his 37-month, within-guidelines sentence as unreasonable
    and unconstitutional.
    Flores contends that the district court committed procedural error by
    holding him responsible for too high a quantity of drugs and for treating the
    Guidelines as mandatory. He raised neither argument in the district court and
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20055         Document: 00511672005         Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/21/2011
    No. 11-20055
    cannot now show plain error.1 The drug quantity finding was based on Flores’s
    own admission as reflected in the presentence report, which Flores did not
    attempt to rebut and has not shown lacked an adequate evidentiary basis or was
    unreliable.2 Moreover, Flores provides no explanation or record citation to
    support his assertion that the court treated the Guidelines as mandatory, and
    nothing in the record suggests that the court believed it was bound by the
    guidelines range.
    Flores argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable for four
    reasons: his young age entitled him to a shorter sentence, a codefendant who
    was caught selling a similar amount of drugs received a shorter sentence, the
    court should not have considered that Flores illegally possessed a gun, and the
    court failed to take into account all of the goals of sentencing. At sentencing, the
    district court listened to the parties’ arguments and provided sound reasons for
    the within-guidelines sentence it selected. The court made “an individualized
    assessment” based on the facts of Flores’s particular case.3 Flores’s arguments
    amount to a disagreement with the court’s weighing of the sentencing factors,
    which is insufficient to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines
    sentence is reasonable.4
    Finally, Flores maintains that his right to equal protection was violated
    because he was sentenced more harshly than his codefendant. He did not raise
    this issue in the district court; thus, plain error review applies.5 Flores has come
    1
    See United States v. Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d 256
    , 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009).
    2
    See United States v. Smith, 
    528 F.3d 423
    , 425 (5th Cir. 2008).
    3
    United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 
    531 F.3d 337
    , 339 (5th Cir. 2008).
    4
    See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 
    523 F.3d 554
    , 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); see also
    United States v. Mares, 
    402 F.3d 511
    , 519 (5th Cir. 2005) (explaining that where a court
    imposes a within-guidelines sentence, this Court will “infer that the judge has considered all
    the factors for a fair sentence”).
    5
    See United States v. Martinez, 
    496 F.3d 387
    , 389 (5th Cir. 2007).
    2
    Case: 11-20055        Document: 00511672005        Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/21/2011
    No. 11-20055
    forward with no evidence as to the factors that went into determining his
    codefendant’s sentence and has not explained the court’s reasons for imposing
    that sentence. Nor has he established that any disparity between the two
    sentences rises to the level of a constitutional violation by showing that his
    codefendant was “similarly situated” to him and “unfairly enjoy[ed] benefits that
    he does not or escape[d] burdens to which he is subjected.”6
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    6
    United States v. Cronn, 
    717 F.2d 164
    , 169 (5th Cir.1983).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-20055

Citation Numbers: 452 F. App'x 484

Judges: Davis, Elrod, Higginbotham, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/21/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023