eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2019-11

United States v. Cristina Mezomo ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 19-10007      Document: 00515188972         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/06/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-10007                           FILED
Summary Calendar                 November 6, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CRISTINA MEZOMO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-136-2
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Cristina Mezomo pleaded guilty to possession of stolen mail, and the
district court sentenced her, above the advisory guidelines range of 21 to 27
months, to 36 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Mezomo now appeals, challenging her sentence as procedurally and
substantively unreasonable.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10007       Document: 00515188972         Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/06/2019
No. 19-10007
Because Mezomo did not preserve either of her arguments in the district
court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Fuentes,
    906 F.3d 322
    , 325
(5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied,
    139 S. Ct. 1363
     (2019); United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago,
    564 F.3d 357
    , 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Mezomo must
therefore show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her
substantial rights. Puckett v. United States,
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135, (2009). If she
makes such a showing, we have discretion to correct the error and should do
so if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States,
    138 S. Ct. 1897
    , 1905 (2018)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1
First, Mezomo complains that her sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court did not adequately explain its reasons or specifically
address her mitigating arguments. However, the district court gave Mezomo
“some explanation” for the sentence when it expressed concern about her
criminal history and her likelihood of recidivism. United States v. Whitelaw,
    580 F.3d 256
    , 261 (5th Cir. 2009). Mezomo has not shown that a more thorough
explanation would have resulted in a lower sentence, and the instant record
satisfies us that the district court considered Mezomo’s arguments and had a
reasoned basis for imposing the sentence. See
    id.
    Next, Mezomo argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to meet
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)’s sentencing
goals and because the district court failed to account for several significant
sentencing factors. The instant record, including the sentencing transcript and
statement of reasons, reflects the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a)
factors.   Moreover, under the totality of the circumstances, the 36-month
1 We note, however, that, in this case, the standard of review is not dispositive. Even
applying the less-deferential standards argued by Mezomo, she still would not prevail.
2
Case: 19-10007    Document: 00515188972     Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/06/2019
No. 19-10007
sentence is not an abuse of discretion, much less a clear or obvious abuse of the
district court’s discretion amounting to plain error. See Fuentes, 906 F.3d at
325. As Mezomo has shown no error, plain or otherwise, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
3