IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41191

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JULIAN MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-235-2

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Julian Martinez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with 

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing crystal 

methamphetamine. He appeals the 292-month sentence he received at 

resentencing, which was within the guidelines range calculated after a 

downward departure for an overrepresented criminal history category. 

Martinez-Rodriguez argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet 

 

* 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

June 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41191 Document: 00514052569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-41191

2

the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the 

sentence is too severe for an individual over the age of 40 who was not a leader 

or organizer; that the sentence resulted in an unwarranted sentencing 

disparity; and that the court failed to take into account his minimal, nonviolent 

criminal history. Martinez-Rodriguez asserts that the circumstances of the 

offense merited a lower sentence because he did not engage in violence; there 

were no victims; he did not obstruct justice; and he expressed remorse for his 

actions. He argues that the lengthy sentence overstated the severity of the 

offense, that his relatively minor criminal history showed that he had respect

for the law, and that the goals of deterrence and protecting the public could be 

served by a lower sentence.

Martinez-Rodriguez asserts that he preserved this challenge in the 

district court by moving for a downward departure. However, he received the 

downward departure he requested under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, was sentenced at 

the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, and did not object to the sentence 

after it was imposed. A defendant’s failure to object at sentencing to the 

reasonableness of his sentence triggers plain error review. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Martinez-Rodriguez thus has 

the burden of showing a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affected 

his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

If he does so, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously 

affects the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. 

See id.

“A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it ‘(1) does not account for a 

factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight 

to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment 

in balancing the sentencing factors.’” United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 

 Case: 16-41191 Document: 00514052569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-41191

3

332 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Peltier, 505 F.3d at 392). Martinez-Rodriguez’s

general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the district court’s 

weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish that the district 

court erred in balancing them. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007); Warren, 720 F.3d at 332. He has not demonstrated that the district 

court committed a clear and obvious error by sentencing him to a withinguidelines sentence of 292 months in prison. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; 

Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-41191 Document: 00514052569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2017