Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50377/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50377-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noe Reyes Barraza-Montes De Oca
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50377

c/w No. 09-50378

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NOE REYES BARRAZA-MONTES DE OCA, also known as Jose Luis Marquez,

also known as Noe Barraza-Reyes, also known as Noe Montes-Barraza,

Defendant-Appellant

________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NOE REYES BARRAZA-MONTES DE OCA, also known as Noe Montes-De Oca,

also known as Jose Luis Marquez, also known as Noe Barraza-Reyes, also known

as Noe Reyes-Barraza-Montes, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-3407-1

USDC No. 3:05-CR-9-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 3, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-50377 Document: 00511019924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
No. 09-50377

c/w No. 09-50378

 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.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 1

See United States v. Jones, 484 F.3d 783, 791–92 (5th Cir. 2007). 2

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Reyes Barraza-Montes De Oca (Barraza) appeals following his guiltyplea conviction of, and sentence for, illegal reentry and the concomitant

revocation of his supervised release related to a prior conviction for illegal

reentry. Barraza was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment and a consecutive

18-month term of imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release.

Barraza contends that his 41-month sentence is unreasonable because it

is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Barraza argues that the non-violent nature of the illegal reentry offense and his

motive for reentering mitigate the seriousness of the offense. Barraza also

argues that § 2L1.2 double-counts criminal history without an empirical basis.

Barraza’s appellate arguments fail to establish that his sentence was

unreasonable.1

Barraza contends that the 18-month revocation sentence was

unreasonable because it constituted an additional punishment for his new

offense, instead of a penalty for his breach of trust for violating the terms of his

supervised release. Barraza also argues that the sentence was unreasonable

because it was imposed consecutively to the sentence for illegal reentry.

Barraza’s appellate arguments fail to establish that his sentence was

unreasonable or plainly unreasonable.2

The sentences are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-50377 Document: 00511019924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010