Case ID: f-appx_229/html/0317-01.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. Martin Davila LECHUGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-20124
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 31, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Davila Lechuga appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine.

Lechuga raises a single issue on appeal. He argues that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, such as his sentence, is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. He concedes that this court held to the contrary in United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). However, because at least one other circuit has declined to adopt a presumption of reasonableness, Lechuga asserts that a circuit split exists and that he is raising this issue to preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court.

This court must follow its own precedent unless it is overruled by this court en banc or by a decision of the Supreme Court. United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir.1994). Therefore, Lechuga’s argument on appeal is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Alonzo. See also United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.) (stating that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to great deference), cert. denied 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.