Case ID: f-appx_332/html/0943-01.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. German GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50771
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 8, 2009.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Suite B-207, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

German Gallegos appeals his below-guidelines sentence of 240 months of imprisonment following his conviction for importing 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession of 100 kilograms or more of marijuana with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a). He argues that the downward variance by the district court, from a guidelines range of imprisonment of 262 to 327 months, insufficiently accounts for Gallegos’s difficult childhood and continuing mental illness, and is unreasonable.

In exercising its discretion, the district court appropriately considered the advisory sentencing guidelines and the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court determined that imposition of the career offender enhancement resulted in a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of punishment and that the 240-month term of imprisonment appropriately accounted for Gallegos’s personal history and characteristics, as well as his criminal history. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 602. Gallegos has not shown that the district court abused its discretion or that his sentence is unreasonable. See id. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.