Case ID: f-appx_242/html/0227-01.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. Maricela MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-51096
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 12, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gregory D. Torres, Law Offices of Gregory D. Torres, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maricela Mendoza appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following her conviction for one count of theft from a health care benefit program and two counts of money laundering. Mendoza argues that her guidelines calculations were improper. She contends that the district court erred by finding that her crimes harmed the solvency of a financial institution and adjusting her offense level in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(13). Mendoza does not cite to a ease that squarely supports her assertion that the disputed adjustment was erroneous. Consequently, she has not shown that the district court plainly erred when calculating her guidelines sentencing range. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 272 (5th Cir.1998).

Mendoza also contends that her sentence, which exceeds the pertinent guidelines range, is unreasonable. This argument is unavailing. The district court gave adequate valid reasons to support its choice of sentence, and the degree of departure was not unreasonable. See United States v. Armendariz, 451 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706-07 (5th Cir.2006).

Mendoza has shown no error in connection with her sentence. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.