* 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. 06-50259

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOISES ESCARENO SANCHEZ 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-299

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moises Escareno Sanchez (“Sanchez”) was convicted for possession of

cocaine with the intentto distribute. On appeal, he argued, among other things,

that his sentence was unreasonable. We affirmed his conviction and sentence.

See United States v. Sanchez, 507 F.3d 877 (5th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court

vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Gall v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-50259

2

United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). See Sanchez v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

2428 (2008). We need reconsider only the sentencing issue on remand. 

We review a district court’s sentencing decision, whether “inside or outside

the Guidelines range,” under an “abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 128 S. Ct.

at 597. Our role is to

first ensure that the district court committed no significant

procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly

calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately

explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines range. Assuming that the district

court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, the appellate

court should then consider the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 

Id.

Sanchez does not argue that there was any procedural error, nor can we

find any. Instead, he argues that the sentence itself was unreasonable in light

of his age, criminal history, and chance of recidivism. The judge sentenced

Sanchez to 151 months of imprisonment, at the bottom of the Guidelines range,

and expressly noted that he knew the sentence would be difficult for Sanchez

because he was fifty years old. The judge found the sentence, however, to be

appropriate and reasonable given the amount of drugs involved and the

objectives of punishment, general deterrence, and incapacitation. The judge took

into account the § 3553(a) factors in determining that a sentence of 151 months

was warranted. This case is very similar to our remand decision in United

States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, where we found a sentence at the bottom of the

Guidelines range was reasonable in light of Gall. 530 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2008).

After giving this case the further consideration required in light of Gall, we

likewise “remain convinced that affirmance of the sentence is called for and that

Gall does not call for any other result.” Id. at 385. For the foregoing reasons, as
No. 06-50259

3

well as for the reasons stated in our earlier opinion, 507 F.3d 877, the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.