Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40621/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Erika Maricela Vitela
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40621

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERIKA MARICELA VITELA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-741-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Erika Maricela Vitela appeals the four, concurrent 18-month prison

sentences imposed upon revocation of the terms of probation she received 

following her convictions on one count of conspiracy to transport an 

undocumented alien within the United States for commercial advantage or 

private financial gain and three counts of transporting an undocumented alien 

for commercial advantage or private financial gain. On appeal, Vitela argues 

* 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

March 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40621 Document: 00512986229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-40621

that the district court abused its discretion by failing to take the recommended 

sentencing range of three to ninth months into account and by imposing 

sentences that were greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). She further contends that the district court did not give adequate 

weight to the mitigating factors and arguments that she presented during the 

revocation hearing.

The district court’s sentencing decision was not plainly unreasonable. 

See United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491, 496 (5th Cir. 2012). Before 

pronouncing Vitela’s sentences, the district court expressly considered the 

applicable policy statement range under Chapter Seven of the Guidelines 

Manual promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission, the 

maximum statutory sentence that Vitela faced, and Vitela’s arguments in favor 

of leniency. While Vitela’s sentences exceeded the applicable policy statement 

range, they were within the statutory maximum term that she faced. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3565(a); United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 287-88 (5th Cir. 1997). 

We have routinely upheld such sentences. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 

256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40621 Document: 00512986229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015