Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0334-01.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. Lizette LUNA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40311 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 20, 2017
    Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lizette Luna pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute approximately 291.5 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court imposed a sentence of 48 months of imprisonment, which was an upward variance from the advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months.

Luna argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). She claims that in varying from the advisory guideline range, the district court placed too much weight on the fact that she was out on bond for another drug offense when she committed this offense and an upward variance was substantively unreasonable because she continued her criminal activity only after drug traffickers threatened to harm her and her family. We review the substantive reasonableness of Luna’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The district court was aware of Luna’s claim that she agreed to do a “second run” of marihuana only after being threatened by drug traffickers. Although Luna “may disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, [her] argument that these factors should have been weighed differently is not a sufficient ground for reversal." United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 526, 196 L.Ed.2d 408 (2016).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.