United States v. Eduardo Zamarripa ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 18-11435      Document: 00515384939         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/16/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 18-11435                            April 16, 2020
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    EDUARDO ZAMARRIPA,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:16-CR-172-1
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    In 2016, Eduardo Zamarripa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was
    sentenced to six months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised
    release.    His supervised release began in January 2017, and he was
    subsequently deported to Mexico. The district court revoked Zamarripa’s term
    of supervised release and sentenced him at the high end of the policy statement
    range to 24 months of imprisonment and to one year of supervised release.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-11435    Document: 00515384939     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/16/2020
    No. 18-11435
    Zamarripa argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
    because the district court failed to explain its sentence adequately, in light of
    his nonfrivolous argument for a lesser sentence. We review for plain error. See
    United States v. Whitelaw, 
    580 F.3d 256
    , 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). Zamarripa
    fails to establish reversible plain error, as the district court’s comments at
    sentencing reflect that it weighed Zamarripa’s arguments for a lesser sentence
    but concluded that a high-end sentence was warranted, enabling this court to
    conduct meaningful appellate review. See Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009); United States v. Diaz Sanchez, 
    714 F.3d 289
    , 294-95 (5th Cir.
    2013); 
    Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 264
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-11435

Filed Date: 4/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2020