United States v. Antonio Yahuaca

Case: 16-50838 Document: 00514042443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50838 FILED
Summary Calendar June 21, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ANTONIO YAHUACA, also known as Junior Yahuaca, also known as Antonio
Yahuaca, Jr., also known as Tony Antonio Yahuaca, also known as Tony
Yahuaca,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CR-916-8
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Antonio Yahuaca appeals the 240-month below-
guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
Because Yahuaca committed the offense after two prior felony convictions for
controlled substance offenses, his guidelines range was calculated pursuant to
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50838 Document: 00514042443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2017
No. 16-50838
the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender guideline. He now argues that his
sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment because his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his
offense. He also contends that his presentence investigation report (PSR)
should not have included two § 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements. We review
these unpreserved issues for plain error. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d
105, 155 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357,
361 (5th Cir. 2009).
Yahuaca has failed to establish any error, let alone plain error. His
below-guidelines 240-month sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the
severity of his controlled substance offense. See United States v. Mills, 843
F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 949110 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2017)
(No. 16-8524); see also Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 265-67 (1980). The
§ 2D1.1 offense-level enhancements reflected in his PSR were not included in
the enhanced career-offender guidelines range considered by the district court
at sentencing, so his challenge to those enhancements is likewise meritless.
AFFIRMED.
2