Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0327-01.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. Juan Angel GARCIA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41842
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Juan Angel Gareia-Gonzalez, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Willacy County Detention Center, Raymondville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Angel Gareia-Gonzalez appeals his 57-month sentence for knowingly and intentionally importing into the United States more than five kilograms of cocaine. Gareia-Gonzalez contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a), punished him based on the erroneous belief that he was wealthy, and implicated Eighth Amendment concerns by issuing a sentence that was unduly harsh without reason. Garcia-Gonzalez’s sentence is within a properly calculated sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); see also Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (permitting presumption of reasonableness for sentences within properly calculated guidelines range).

His sentence was imposed with sufficient consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, was not assessed under the erroneous belief that he was wealthy, and is not unreasonable. See Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468-69; United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2007), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. May 21, 2007) (No. 06-11834); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). Garcia-Gonzalez’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence is unavailing. See United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1993).

Garcia-Gonzalez also contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not specifically objecting to the district court’s failure to provide a reasoned analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. Although this court generally does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because the record will rarely be developed sufficiently to allow a fair evaluation of the merits of the claim, United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir.2007), the record here provides sufficient detail to allow this court to decide Garcia-Gonzalez’s claim. See United States v. Saenz-Forero, 27 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Rosalez-Orozco, 8 F.3d 198, 199-202 (5th Cir.1993). Garcia-Gonzalez’s claim fails because the district court adequately addressed the § 3553(a) factors. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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.