IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10483

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TAYLOR MICHAEL MENDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-226-1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Taylor Michael Mendez challenges his within-Guidelines sentence, 

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction on one count of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. Mendez was 

sentenced, inter alia, to 180-months’ imprisonment. The district court rejected 

Mendez’ request for his sentence to be concurrent with two state convictions 

that were included as relevant conduct in the instant offense. 

* 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

February 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2014
No. 13-10483

Mendez contends: his sentence is substantively unreasonable, including, 

because of the court’s failing to provide sufficient reasons for its length and its 

being consecutive to the state convictions. Although post-Booker, the 

Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to 

an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the 

Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved 

in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its 

factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 

517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 

(5th Cir. 2005). Mendez expressly does not claim procedural error. Again, he 

maintains only that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

The sentence, including its being consecutive, is in accord with proper 

rules and Guidelines calculations; therefore, it is presumed reasonable. See 

United States v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2006). To rebut this 

presumption, Mendez must show “the sentence does not account for a factor

that should [have] receive[d] significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to 

an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear error of judgment in 

balancing sentencing factors”. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th

Cir. 2009).

The district court gave sufficient explanation for the sentence. See 

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(noting within-Guidelines sentences require little explanation). Mendez 

essentially asks this court to substitute his assessment of the sentencing 

2

 Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2014
No. 13-10483

factors for the district court’s well-reasoned assessment; this would be directly 

contrary to the deferential review dictated by Gall. See 552 U.S. at 46. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-10483 Document: 00512539365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2014