Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Urbano CORTINAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-05
Citations: 667 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 15-40401 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Urbano CORTINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Urbano CORTINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40401 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 07/05/2016
Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Thomas S. Berg, Esq., Mallett Saper Berg, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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).
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 presen-tence 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 Corti-nas's cooperation under§ 3553(a).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.