United States v. Christopher Hernandez

Case: 19-10665 Document: 00515325890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-10665 FILED
Summary Calendar February 28, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-30-2
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Christopher Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to
a prison term of 168 months, the top of the Guidelines range. Hernandez
argues that he should have received a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2 and that his sentence is 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10665 Document: 00515325890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-10665
Because Hernandez did not seek the mitigating role adjustment in the
district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v.
Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir. 2008). Hernandez does not show
that it was obvious error to sentence him as an average participant in the drug
conspiracy. Although the cooperating witness identified Hernandez only as
the bodyguard of the witness’s cocaine supplier, Hernandez helped set up the
delivery of 24 kilograms of cocaine, Hernandez’s home was used to store large
amounts of cocaine, and Hernandez’s identification was in the bedroom where
law enforcement found 8 kilograms of cocaine, multiple firearms, and over
$30,000 in cash. Hernandez fails to show that the court plainly erred in failing
to award a reduction under § 3B1.2.
Hernandez also challenges his sentence on the ground that it is
substantively unreasonable. We see no abuse of discretion in the within-
Guidelines sentence, which is presumed reasonable on appellate review. See
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347–56 (2007). The district court heard
Hernandez’s arguments for a downward variance, including his argument that
he was not a leader of the conspiracy and that he had accepted responsibility
for his role in the offense. The district court also heard Hernandez’s apology,
adopted the findings and conclusions of the presentence report, expressed
concern over the number of firearms discovered at the residence, and cited its
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Hernandez has not
shown that the district court, when imposing sentence, failed to consider a
significant factor, considered an improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in balancing the relevant factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589
F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). His disagreement with the sentence does not
warrant reversal. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2