Case ID: f-appx_261/html/0799-01.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. Jorge A. HABIB-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41600
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 16, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Jorge A. Habib-Rodriguez, Laredo, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge A. Habib-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison.

Habib challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, particularly the district court’s failure to impose a sentence below the calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, based on the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For sentencing, Habib neither contested the calculation of that range nor objected to a sentence being imposed within it. Therefore, review is only for plain error.

The district court gave sufficient reasons for sentencing Habib within that sentencing range. Furthermore, Habib’s sentence within that advisory range was presumptively reasonable, and Habib has not shown that the “sentence ... constitute^] a clear error in the court’s exercise of its broad sentencing discretion” as to whether the sentence “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors”. United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 163, 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.