Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50550/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50550-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cesar Gerardo Tron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50550

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR GERARDO TRON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:08-CR-942-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cesar Tron appeals the 10-month sentence imposed following his guilty

plea conviction for failure to comply with reporting requirements in violation of

19 U.S.C. § 1459(a) and (e). Tron’s within-guidelines sentence was imposed to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 7, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-50550 Document: 00511072493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2010
No. 09-50550

2

run consecutively to the 10-month sentenced imposed following the revocation

of his supervised release. He contends that the consecutive nature of his sentence rendered it substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, he argues

that the district court overemphasized the seriousness of his offense, overstated

his criminal history, and failed to account for his reasons for going to Mexico. 

This court reviews a sentence, including its consecutive nature, for reasonableness in light of § 3553(a). See United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468,

472-73 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.

2005). Pursuant to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we first determine whether the district court committed any significant procedural error. If

not, we “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under

an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. “A discretionary sentence imposed within

a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). Likewise, a consecutive sentence imposed within the

parameters of the advisory guidelines is presumptively reasonable and accorded

great deference. Candia, 454 F.3d at 473.

The district court considered Tron’s request for a concurrent sentence and

ultimately determined that a consecutive sentence at the top of the applicable

guideline range was appropriate based on the circumstances and the § 3553(a)

factors. Specifically, the court noted Tron’s multiple appearances in federal

court, his extensive criminal history, and his repeated failure to follow the

court’s instructions despite assurances to the contrary. The imposition of a consecutive sentence is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, and

Tron has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Candia, 454

F.3d at 478-79. Because he has not demonstrated that the consecutive sentence

within the guidelines range was an abuse of discretion, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-50550 Document: 00511072493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2010