Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40401/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40401-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Urbano Cortinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40401

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JOSE URBANO CORTINAS, 

 Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1084-2

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Urbano Cortinas appeals the 262-month sentence imposed for his 

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or 

more of cocaine. He argues that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court failed to consider his cooperation with the 

Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

* 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

July 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-40401 Document: 00513578707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2016
No. 15-40401

There is no indication that the district court thought it lacked the 

authority to vary downward to account for Cortinas’s cooperation. See United 

States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599, 601 (5th Cir. 2014). In his written 

objections to the presentence report, Cortinas advised the district court of its 

authority to consider cooperation under § 3553(a). Moreover, at the sentencing 

hearing, the district court listened to Cortinas’s explanations of his cooperation 

with the Government and explicitly stated that it was considering the 

evidence, along with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court’s 

references to a possible reduction of sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35 for substantial assistance do not establish that it ignored its 

authority to consider Cortinas’s cooperation under§ 3553(a).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-40401 Document: 00513578707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2016