United States v. Mendoza , 72 F. App'x 202 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10056
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISRAEL MENDOZA,
also known as Jose Rios,
also known as Julian Ramos-Alcala,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-129-1-A
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Israel Mendoza appeals his 120-month sentence following a
plea of guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. He contends that the district court erred by departing
upward from the sentencing guidelines range of 30 to 37 months
based on its conclusion that Mendoza’s criminal history score did
not reflect the extent of his criminal record and the likelihood
of recidivism. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (p.s.)
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10056
-2-
The district court’s reasons for departure were adequate.
Mendoza has continuously reentered the United States and
committed crimes despite deportations and lenient sentences, and
his criminal history and risk of recidivism were under-
represented by his criminal history score. See United States v.
Pennington, 9 F.3d 1116, 1118 (5th Cir. 1993). The degree of
departure was reasonable because the district court moved
incrementally through the guidelines ranges to reach a sentence
the court deemed adequate in light of the ineffectiveness of
prior lesser sentences in deterring Mendoza’s criminal conduct.
See United States v. Rosogie, 21 F.3d 632, 633-34 (5th Cir.
1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
departing as it did. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.