United States v. Nunez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 4, 2009
No. 08-50940
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LARRY DARNELL NUNEZ, also known as Laylow
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:08-CR-146-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Darnell Nunez appeals following his guilty plea conviction for
possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. He argues that the
district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an above-guidelines
sentence of 200 months of imprisonment.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are
reviewed for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-50940
U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005).
Because Nunez does not challenge the procedural correctness of his sentence, see
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008), this court may
proceed to an examination of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
596-97 (2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir. 2008).
Contrary to Nunez’s assertions, his prior offenses were serious in nature
and, as noted by the district court, represented an obvious and lengthy
disrespect for the law. The offense of conviction also was serious, as it involved
11 distributions of significant amounts of crack cocaine, which ended only with
Nunez’s arrest. Moreover, although Nunez claims that the advisory sentencing
range set forth by the Sentencing Guidelines for the crack offense was greater
than necessary, he has failed to show that the range has been declared invalid
by this or any other court. Because the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors and gave sufficient reasons for its decision to impose a nonguidelines
sentence, Nunez’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable and is
AFFIRMED.
2