Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20362/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20362-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Loya-Plancarte
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20362

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN LOYA-PLANCARTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-297

Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Loya-Plancarte, also known as Martin Loya-Plancarte, appeals

the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 

one count of aiding and abetting the same. He asserts that the district court 

erred by increasing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) for his role as a 

supervisor or manager of others in the criminal activity. Ample evidence, 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20362 Document: 00513046571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-20362

including the unrebutted facts recited in the presentence report, establish that 

Loya-Plancarte provided drug samples and instructions to two fellow 

conspirators and that he supervised their activities during a drug transaction. 

Loya-Plancarte fails to show that the district court clearly erred by applying 

this increase. See United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704, 720 (5th Cir. 2011).

Primarily, Loya-Plancarte asserts that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable because the district court improperly applied the sentencing 

factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although review is for plain error, see United 

States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), Loya-Plancarte’s 

challenge fails under the usual abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Because the sentence was within the correct guideline range, it is 

presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 

2006). Loya-Plancarte argues that his sentence is not entitled to a 

presumption of reasonableness because the drug-trafficking Guidelines lack an 

empirical basis. Such “empirical basis” arguments are foreclosed, as he 

concedes. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th 

Cir. 2009).

Otherwise, Loya-Plancarte asserts that the sentence was greater than 

necessary to provide just punishment, to provide adequate deterrence, and to 

protect the public. He also argues that the court gave inadequate weight to his 

personal history, particularly his expected deportation from the United States. 

In addition, Loya-Plancarte argues that the court was subtly swayed by the 

Government’s fixation on capturing a drug-trafficking boss named Dionicio 

Loya-Plancarte, though the record offers nothing to support this fanciful 

suggestion.

2

Case: 14-20362 Document: 00513046571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-20362

Ultimately, Loya-Plancarte merely asks us to substitute his assessment 

of the sentencing factors for the district court’s, which is directly contrary to 

the deferential review dictated by Gall. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. LoyaPlancarte’s disagreement with the sentence does not rebut the presumption of 

reasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). 

He has not shown that his sentence was unreasonable or plainly erroneous. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92.

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 14-20362 Document: 00513046571 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2015