Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0383-01.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. Carlos TREVINO-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40256
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 10, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Trevino-Salazar (Trevino) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for transporting undocumented aliens within the United States by means of a motor vehicle for private financial gain. Although Trevino concedes that his sentence is to be reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s precedent, Trevino also asserts that the presumption of reasonableness standard is unconstitutional. Trevino aeknowledges that this argument is foreclosed and raises it only to preserve for further review. This court is bound by the precedent of previous panels absent “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

Trevino also argues that his sentence of 44 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the district court failed to consider mitigating factors. Given Trevino’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of his instant offense, he has not shown that the sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not defer to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.