United States v. Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz

Case: 13-10234 Document: 00512462536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-10234
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 5, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-54-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz appeals the 151-month within-guidelines
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance. Rodriguez-Ruiz challenges the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court “should have
granted a downward departure or variance from the Guidelines because of the
cumulative factors presented to the court.”
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-10234 Document: 00512462536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2013
No. 13-10234
To the extent that Rodriguez-Ruiz challenges the district court’s denial
of a downward departure, “[t]his court lacks jurisdiction to review a downward-
departure denial unless . . . the district court held a mistaken belief that the
Guidelines do not give it the authority to depart.” United States v. Sam, 467
F.3d 857, 861 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). Contrary to Rodriguez-Ruiz’s
suggestion that it is unclear from the record whether the district court believed
it lacked the authority to depart, the record reflects that the court considered
sentencing him below the applicable guidelines range yet determined that a
below-guidelines sentence was not warranted. Accordingly, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of a downward departure. See
Sam, 467 F.3d at 861.
Rodriguez-Ruiz has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that
attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d
390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.
2009). Thus, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2