Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mark MATA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11021
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 2, 2007.
    Chad Eugene Meacham, Caldwell County Criminal Dist. Attorney, Lockhart, TX, Kim L. McCabe, Linda R. Rossborough, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Mark Mata, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mark Mata appeals the 168-month prison sentence imposed following his of conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Mata contends that the district court infringed his Sixth Amendment rights and erred by sentencing him based on its own factual findings. Mata also challenges the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. These arguments are foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005).

Mata argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not give sufficient weight to certain sentencing factors. Mata has failed to show error in connection with his sentence, which was the result of- a downward departure imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-07 (5th Cir.2006).

Mata has shown no error in connection with the district court’s judgment. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance, dismissal of the appeal, or an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.