Case ID: f-appx_262/html/0635-01.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. Ramon Gerardo ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50520
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 25, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ramon Gerardo Espinoza-Martinez pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Espinoza-Martinez at the low end of the properly calculated guidelines range to 70 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Espinoza-Martinez now appeals his sentence.

Espinoza-Martinez argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that sentence is not necessary to protect the public or to prevent him from committing future crimes because this was his first offense and he is genuinely repentant.

The district court committed no significant procedural error as it properly calculated the applicable guidelines range, allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, and considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. Where, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006); see also Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Espinoza-Martinez has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.